You Can Just Call Me… “V”

You guys didn’t really think I was going to let this topic go by without covering it did you? I had to let myself calm down a little bit to be honest. Because it is this type of hate speech that is becoming an identifying trait of the modern day far left liberal politician. Today’s target is Janet Napolitano. And that means that you already know where I am going with this post. Janet is a far left loon. There are many far left loons currently serving in the United States Congress and federal government today. And this is why I keep warning my liberal friends and readers that they may want to start distancing themselves from the Democratic party now, before the real main stream America (as opposed to the made up one that the MSM keeps telling you exists) gets them completely figured out. Because once that happens, I can’t protect those who stood up and supported the policies these whackos were executing….

So here is what happened that has my ire, although not my surprise. About 2 weeks ago, the Department of Homeland Security decided that they were going to issue a report on “radical right wing extremists” in the United States who may be a threat to the United States Government. The Report was titled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment. There was a little bit of a blowup because returning veterans were among those listed as potential threats. But a thorough read of the document gives a much better idea of how dangerous this document really is. You can find it here:

It is about 10 pages long so read it some other time when you have a half hour to kill. A couple of things struck me about this document, and not all of them are along the lines you may be expecting. First and foremost, I think that it was clear that the DHS was NOT saying that returning veterans are right wing extremists. Despite the belief that this was the case, it simply doesn’t say that anywhere in the document. What it does say is that some vets returning from war struggle to re-integrate into society and that some of those are disgruntled with the United States government. I believe both of those things to be true. I know that I initially struggled to reintegrate (which I have come to realize is a natural reaction, switching from one mindset to another is difficult), and I am sure as hell disgruntled with government . The key to the report was that DHS believed that those soldiers were targets for right wing extremists groups recruitment. That is a far cry from calling vets extremists.

The second thing that I noticed heavily in the report was that if you are an American that feels as though government regulation has restricted your 2nd Amendment rights, you are an extremist. The report points to the stockpiling of guns or ammunition as extremists activities and that these actions are the first steps in planning terrorist activities against government facilities and personnel. Personally I disagree with this one. I believe that the government has intentionally and tactically eroded our 2nd Amendment rights. And as a result, the ratio of criminals with gun power to regular folks with gun power continues to change. I believe that if they had the ability, the government would take away guns completely. And the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition is not a move towards extremism, it is merely a reaction to government’s increasing restrictions.

And for the record I don’t believe that the increase in guns is meant to EVER be used as a tool for aggression against the United States government…. but I do think there are plenty of people who are starting to feel as though we might need them in a defensive fashion. I hope all those feeling that way are wrong, but I know the “better safe than sorry” mantra is starting to look wise.

Overall the worst thing about the report was that it attempted to link anyone who is critical of government with extremists skinhead groups and militias. Additionally it pointed out that Timothy McVeigh was a returning veteran unhappy with government. It is irresponsible to create these links and disseminate that information to the general public as a government mandate. I liken it to past reports that stated blacks in America are extremists who will act out against government, while offering proof by pointing out the actions of radicals like black panther party members. It led to mass discrimination by ignorant local officials who took it to mean that ALL blacks were that way. Only now, ALL means a different group of people: You and Me and anyone else who isn’t lining up to praise the socialistic and fascist moves being taken by our government today.

The bottom line for this report, in my opinion, is that it was not nearly as bad as the folks at Fox News made us think that it was. But that does not mean that the report was not a bad thing. And here is why it is bad. Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano was making an opening attack with this report. Notice first of all that someone critical of government is now branded a “right wing extremist”. Interesting that when those on the left were rioting in the streets and calling government murderers, terrorists, and claiming that George Bush was a tyrant and a dictator, they were not branded extremists. They were merely concerned Americans who were exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

The question is why has this step been taken? We are seeing those critical of government labeled as extremists all over the place these days. That CNN bulldog sent out to the Chicago Tea Party referred to those gathered as being organized by anti-government extremist network Fox. And now even Napolitano and the DHS is referring to those critical of government as extremists.

Is Janet an Extremist? methinks so.

I will tell you what I think. I think this is a calculated move to begin swaying a gullible public to believe that anyone who speaks out against the government is both a radical extremist and dangerous. And once that is accomplished it becomes OK when the government starts to take action against anyone speaking out against the government. After all, who would oppose the corralling of a radical extremist? At least half the public believes that it was OK to send folks to Gitmo and hold them there with no trial for years because they were extremists. Does your opinion of supporting such an action change when you are the one labeled extreme? (Don’t answer that, I have a post coming up in the next couple of days on this topic so save your thoughts for that).

This of course, shows Napolitano for what she is, a left loon, drinking the kool-aid, making batches herself, actually. Do we really want someone defining radical extremism domestically who cannot keep straight the facts surrounding the biggest terrorist attack on American soil in history? She replied to questions about treating the northern border similarly to the southern one, stating, “Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn’t have a drug war going on, it didn’t have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year. Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it’s been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there.” CTV reported that Napolitano was asked if she was referring to the Sept. 11 hijackers. She said: “Not just those but others as well.” Perhaps the Secretary of DHS missed the 9/11 Commission’s report that the 9/11 attackers did not come through Canada. Can’t say that I am confident that she will help restore American relationships with her allies, lol.

So where do this leave me? It leaves me knowing this: I am extremely unhappy with the current path of government. I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is being trampled on by our government and that it is an increasing problem. And apparently that makes me an extremist. And because I am writing this blog and enticing so many people to come and read it and discuss the inadequacies of government, that probably means that I am an extremist leader. But if the definition of extremist is being a person who believes in the Constitution, and who believes that my freedom of speech allows me criticize government and rally people to hold government accountable, then I have but one thing to say…

Now it’s two people’s opinion Ray. In the Report, 1st page, 1st Paragraph, it states “The economic downturn and he election of the first African-American President present unique drivers for rightwng radicalization and recruitment”. For a report that was started by Pres. Bush, and I don’t doubt that it was, he had remrkable precience to know that the first African-American President was going to be elected.

What does this have to do with anything? Well it’s remrkable that with someone simply continuing a report started with Bush, that the current administraton was able to get their spin on it in the first paragraph!

I have read the report twice and still can’t get away fro the feeling that anyone who dissents with the current government’s view is going to be deemed a “right wing radical” by them. It’s also interesting that this report came out right as the Tea Parties were happening.

You know, I REALLY don’t want to be a Conspiracy Theory wacko. So I’ll just say that there sure are a lot of coincidences happening in the last 3 or 4 months.

I too found it very interesting on the timing of the report. PERHAPS it was “subconscious” propaganda.

I too am seeing coincidences occuring. Nothing that I can point to and say here is my proof…Just seems like I feel pin pricks of coincidence. That is just MY FEELING…So, please don’t anyone here ask me to prove to you anything…because I can’t…I’m just talking about a “feeling” that I personally have.

I know exactly how you feel. My intuition has been setting off alarm bells. It started the first time I saw Obama in action during the campaign. Whenever I have ignored my intuition, it has been to my detriment. This time, I’m going with my gut even if I can’t articulate why to others. You are not alone….

I definitely agree that the timing of the report was really fishy, especially since I KNOW it impacted attendance at the tea parties negatively. I feel that the report was used (at least partially) to downplay the size of the American public that is upset with the current administration’s policies.

I feel like the American public is mostly against the choices being made on our behalf, and that most of us feel helpless to trying to do anything about it. I, for one, don’t want to be put on a government watchlist for “extremist” anything. I remember my history lessons well, and I don’t have that much faith in people to stop something until it is too late.

I know that I probably already do have my name on a list somewhere, with a file folder to match, because I haven’t been able to keep my opinions to myself these last 12 years or so. Now that I see where things might be heading with our country I am starting to get a little nervous about what new bills are being signed, and what might be next.

The economy is banged up, it needs to heal. Putting makeup on it and pretending nothing is wrong won’t fix it. These businesses that have lied and cheated and basically just been doing bad business for years, need to fail. They will be replaced sooner or later by someone who will hopefully do a better job of things this time around. The government needs to acknowledge that there is a serious problem with the gap in the cost of living and the pay rates in the country, and step in to do something to fix it. I believe that without that step, consumer spending is doomed for a long time.

I feel as if the DHS report was not only an attempt to sway popular opinion of who and what military vets, gun owners, conservatives,anyone that opposes socialism,anyone that opposes federal legislation, tea party attendees etc…but also a test bubble to see what reactions would be in the public itself.I keep asking myself this question over and over and it makes me both angry and frightened as to the answer I keep coming up with.Why would our federal government want to sway public opinion in such a drastic manner and what the heck are they trying to accomplish by doing so?

I have to agree with you here. First there was talk of the reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, then we have this report published. It does seem as if there is some effort at silencing people with different viewpoints. The only inconsistency that surprised me is that the newest member of the Most Wanted List is a domestic left-wing terrorist who bombed a lab that performed testing on animals. Does this mean that the bubble test failed? Is the addition of a left-wing terrorists (to a list that includes only Islamic terrorists including Osama bin Laden) mean that we, on the right, are being placated?

May I point out that this report was reportedly started under the former administration? While I agree that Janet is part of the loony left, I do not think it is accurate to lay this entire report at her feet.

Correct this report was started under the Bush administration. There are extreme right wing groups/militias out there with extremist radical views. The problem with this report is it classifies anyone that has an opposing view of the government and it’s policies as a extremist. It does not separate the crazies from the average folks. This is frightening.

“* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Note the second half of the definition, beginning with “and those that are mainly antigovernment,…. This is profiling and it captures many, many Americans. Exactly 50% I don’t know. Could be less, could be more.

I didn’t write the report – but in the context of the wording and pre- and post- wording “rejecting Federal authority” appears to be intended as very literal. I am pretty sure that 50% of the populace would not agree with that.

Ray, why did you cut off the rest of the thought? “……..in favor of state or local authority,…”.

Perhaps it is meant to be very literal. So if you reject federal authority in favor of state authority, as clearly provided in our constitution, you are in one of those “groups, movements, and adherents” practicing “rightwing extremism”.

Looks like this net catches more than the occassional herring to me.
JAC

JAC,
After reading the Report, I was struck by the very fact that you brought up. In this PC Administration, where we are supposed to call Terrorists “Extremist IED Experts”, or some other ridiculous thing instead of just calling a spade a spade; why are WE being singled out? I don’t know about you but “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting Federal authority in favor of State or local authority” IS ME! And for an Administration that is focused on the future and “can’t speak to the past”, it looks from that report that they drudged up a hell of a lot of 80’s and 90’s history in that report!

So let me say this to any HS or FBI reading US’s blog. Am I against Federal Government all up in my face, doing the State’s job? Hell Yes! Am I a threat to do anything except piss and moan about it as is my right under the 1st Amendment? Hell NO! This does not make me an extremist Right Wing Radical! This just makes me extremely dissatisfied with an Administration I didn’t vote for, who seems bound and determined to bring the Nation I love to it’s knees. If that’s too harsh a criticism of Obama then come and lock my ass up! I’m sorry that I wasn’t aware that the Bill of Rights had been thrown out the window. ALREADY.

Did not Obama him self say, when in was running for Office, that the people need to stop Bush and put someone in Office that would listen to what they (the people) want? If I got that right would that not make HIM and his cabinet members’ extremist too? Or is it, The one in power makes the rules and can do no wrong? (I think he said Bush did that too) Just asking let me know what you think

What is so powerful about this calculated move is that because Obama has become such a polarizing figure in America, many regular Americans who support him will happily buy into this message. I have felt it with my own experiences; friends who have told me “I have lost it” and are concerned that I’m “going off the deep end” because of my beliefs about how the administration is systematically trampling the Constitution and spending like drunken sailors to no good end. These believers will look at the government’s message as validation of their beliefs, and the more they hear it, the more the perception that we are extremists will become reality in their minds.

I agree with you there. On Easter my Husband, Father-in-Law and I were talking with my brother-in-law who is a “bit” conservative about these very things eroding the Constitution. Even as a conservative, he refused to see it and basically looked at us with amazement as if we were “going off the deep end” too. I haven’t talked with my liberal friends lately (been avoiding them intentionally), but I sure can imagine what they are going to think!!!!!

RS you ain’t by yo’ self! My closest friends look at me as if I’ve lost my flippin’ mind! That is why I am starting to get this sick felling in the pit of my stomach. Not enough folks are paying attention to what’s going on in the Country.

That’s a good idea. If it does indeed collapse, head for the hills! Despite what some say, I hold no faith whatsoever in my fellow man. IF an end comes, it will be every man (or woman, or family) for itself. Luckily, I have a mighty big family that lives all around me.

MadMom, If getting ready for the impending economic collapse coming our way is “going off the deep end”, well you have some folks going with you! I’ve given up trying to talk about this with those around me, they just don’t get it, and have no intention to look in to it. I started coming to this site because of a very deep gut feeling that there was bad things coming, but had to search to find those answers. I have learned to trust my gut feelings, it’s usually right. Next time your told your going “off the deep end”, just reply, “I can swim, can you”.

I also have started being more cautious as to whom I speak about what is going on, there really are that many people out there who have NO idea what is going on within our own country. I have a few friends that I sometimes discuss things with and they scare the hell out of me too. These are “educated people” with college degrees who seem to have no idea what really is going on in the real world. They seem to have been brainwashed into believing that what is happening is perfectly normal and won’t result in disaster. And I feel that this is going to result in some worse times to come. I hope we all are wrong, but I tend to agree that darker days are coming.

So if the left’s definition of crazy is different from everyone else definition of crazy, who does that mean is crazy? I guess when Obama’s brown shirts have rounded up all the “extremists” you can say we are all crazy.

In the end, the only person who is “crazy” is the one that gets locked up, regardless of their state of mind.

Mad Mom let me ask you a simple question. With an approval rate of “approximately” 60% in this country, how can you call our President a “polarizing” figure? I do not get your sense of definition or reality? Sometimes the answers come from within, not the way we feel we are perceived by others.

Obama is the most polarizing President in 4 decades according to the polls. That fact has been well established when pollsters have broken down the polls by political party. The variance in Obama’s approval rates between Democrats and Republicans is the greatest in decades. Just the facts CF, and nuthin’ but.

60% is the number who “wish him to do well” withing that number is another who think he’s spending like a teen with a gold card as the same polls show the approval of his actions in the high 30’s to low 40’s. Those numbers equate to those who are in fact “the left” and even you’d have to admit he’s the left’s guy bought and paid for. Centrists who voted for O are by no stretch of the imagination “the left”.

What was hoped by many to be a centrist in disguise now is shown as far to the left as Rush is in the opposite. Its a fanciful thing to hope the first president with obvious African roots is the man you hoped he’d be. If things progress to the point it appears they shall without an end in sight, that hope turns to ashes for the centrists and the next election cycle will see the pendulum swing to the other side once again.

USW, I agree totally that it is very difficult to go from military to civilian lifestyle. For some it’s much more difficult than others. I talked with a fellow vet for hours at a time over many months, helping him deal with PTSD. Thankfully, he’s doing fine now and living a normal life and has a great family. My friend made it, despite the difficulties, sadly, not everyone dealing with those issues have that kind of support. With so many vets coming back from Iraq and Poppyland, there is need for a huge support network for them today. Will they become “extremists”? I highly doubt that. I also doubt that anyone that is disgruntled with the govt. will become extremists as well.

I can only speak for myself, but as a war vet, I’m totally against any group that would engage in any form of violent action (planned attacks etc.). However, I also strongly believe in self defense of myself, family and friends. With the crime rates where I live, I would not hesitate to use deadly force for that reason.

Now, addressing my current unhappiness with government. The only option I have is to keep contacting the elected ones to express my opposition to certain legislation, and I do so with a very long explaination as to why I’m in opposition. The next letters will outline the TARP, Stimulus and Omnibus bills that passed, and explain that if they vote for (Cap and Trade), they will not get my vote in the next election, period. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.

“Now, addressing my current unhappiness with government. The only option I have is to keep contacting the elected ones to express my opposition to certain legislation, and I do so with a very long explanation as to why I’m in opposition. The next letters will outline the TARP, Stimulus and Omnibus bills that passed, and explain that if they vote for (Cap and Trade), they will not get my vote in the next election, period. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.” – that does not make you extremist – it makes a responsible citizen. Hoarding guns, ammo and bullet proof vests does not inherently make one an extremist – it just gives you that appearance.

There were a lot of people in New Orleans that wished they had hoarded a few guns and ammunition to protect them selves after Katrina. For a while the criminals took over and looted everything of value.

How could he help but see it? It was on every channel on TV for 3 months! MSM, FOX, PBS, even cable Stations. I’d say since the what N.O. cops there were left and the NG’s said it, it must have been fact.

And besides, I used to live there and still have friends there. They said it too.

In a stunning reversal, the City of New Orleans revealed yesterday to attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association that they do have a stockpile of firearms seized from private citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The disclosure came as attorneys for both sides were preparing for a hearing in federal court on a motion filed earlier by SAF and NRA to hold the city in contempt. Plaintiffs’ attorneys traveled to a location within the New Orleans city limits where they viewed more than 1,000 firearms that were being stored.

What we are looking at here is nothing less than a long term, well thought out, assault on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Listening to the news everyday on the net and at home after work I can’t help but see this.

Think about it. Obama and Congressional Liberals are bringing up Bills and causing various controversies so fast that they are hard to keep up with. They are also very hard to keep separated in the mind as they try to inundate you with data. Let me give an example. The government “let leak” that AIG had given out performance bonuses to some of their employees. This caused an immediate firestorm with the public and “Alledgedly” the government, with them calling for heads on platters and congressional hearings. Meanwhile the fact that Freddie Mac employees got even more bonuses than that of AIG went completely unnoticed by more than just a few. Also the Brownshirt Brigade legislation was quietly passed during this time.

Now we have the matter of the borders. I have no doubt that we are having problems with our borders! After all, we’ve only had this problem with them for the past 200 years or so. But why would she concentrate on the North border? All of the problems we are having are on our Southern border. We don’t have 11 million illegal Canadians in the US. We don’t have a drug war going on at the Border of our Northern Neighbor either. Why, WHY would Janet “from another planet” be concerned only with terrorists sneaking across from Canada?

Well truthfully, I don’t know. But one thing I do know. In a few days or weeks, it will become clearer what the real agenda is, IF you pay attention and watch closely. There will be something that will be slipped quietly through will The Nations attention is focused on those nasty Canadians! Filthy buggers! I never did trust them to begin with! We should have known they’d be sneaking Terrorists in across that border!

This is becoming tiresome. You have to closely watch both hands of our government these days, because if you only watch one, the other is slipping something right under your nose. So be careful fellow Conservatives! This plan will slowly unfold as time passes. But if we’re not vigilant. Before long we Patriots will be branded as extremist domestic terrorists and then we won’t have rights to do anything.

And one more thing. When asked about the comments she had made she said “I can’t speak to things said in the past, I can only look to the future”.

Why is it that in this Administration, every time they shove their foot in their throats, say that? i.e. Eric Holder, Biden, Nopalitano, and Obama himself. What in the hell does that phrase mean, and what does it have to do with “hoof in mouth” syndrome?

Gun stockpiling – the argument made here is flimsy/floppy at best. I’m curious if someone can help me understand how you’d plan to use your personal stockpile of guns in a defensive manner. Way I see this going down – if, as one may fear, the government is coming to ‘get ya’, I’m fairly certain that there wouldn’t be much of a fight. As USW himself has stated in his other posts – and I paraphrase – the military is such that with their training and equipment you’d stand no chance. The boat you’re missing is the very stockpiling of guns creeps a lot of people out. I don’t feel any safer that the neighbor behind me has a basement full of weaponry.

“And for the record I don’t believe that the increase in guns is meant to EVER be used as a tool for aggression against the United States government…. but I do think there are plenty of people who are starting to feel as though we might need them in a defensive fashion.” – what exactly do you think you are going to defend against? This is laughable at best.

“Overall the worst thing about the report was that it attempted to link anyone who is critical of government with extremists skinhead groups and militias.” – No it didn’t – it is conveying factors that increase the likelihood of right-wing extremist recruiting due to different factors that have increased government criticism.

“Notice first of all that someone critical of government is now branded a “right wing extremist”.” – Nope – it is offering that the conditions have made it more likely for right wing extremist recruitment.

I for one am glad that DHS in closely monitoring this phenomena – as glad as I am they monitor left wing extremism such as ELF. I don’t think the psychometricians have it wrong folks – I think there just may be some worry that a few of the attributes they have attributed looked oddly similar to ones you have or possess. The US wrapped up 8 years of Bush extremism with soiled underwear (can only hope that we do arrest and prosecute the Rice’s and Cheney’s and their ilk for crap like waterboarding), as we are moved back to the center, and hopefully a bit to the left, it isn’t shocking that folks like DHS will have an interest in the fomenting extremism on the right. If anything you should be happy they are doing their jobs instead of being asleep at the wheel.

Ray,
After Katrina, there were roving bands of looters and robbers. Many citizens who stayed were able to defend themselves, until the police illegally seized their personal firearms. You seem to assume people “stockpiling” guns and ammo are preparing to fight the government.

I think they are considering who will protect them if the economy fails. Will the police keep working if the paper money has no value, and therefore cannot buy food? If I plant a garden large enough to feed my family, will a gang of men who didn’t plant a garden demand I share with them? Five of them “voting” to my wife and I being two. The Democratic viewpoint would mean my family starving.

Since this blog is great at referencing history – help me understand what occurred during the Great Depression? Maybe my history books and my relatives missed it – please enlighten me why now is different.

No worries – just pointing out that the approach as stated appears that it would be statistically an outlier and thereby excluded. Extremism? Maybe. Poverty is thought to breed extremism which I guess is the other side of the argument.

Now is different from then because we are a divided people. There is NOTHING that binds us. Hell, a good number of people don’t even speak English. With the exception of living within the geographical area designated the United States of America, I can’t think of one thing that binds all Americans together. My boyfriend and I had a similar discussion a while ago. He said if a major crisis occurred, people would join together like they did after Pearl Harbor. Then I asked him about 9/11 and all the division. And guess who he blamed. Bush. Now that we have Obama, it wouldn’t happen again. Pleeeease… 50+ Million people did not vote for Obama, and some that did, are not too happy with him now. So even with the Messiah in the White House, there is nothing substantial that binds us as a nation. Just some food for thought….

Ray, I live in the Rocky Mtn states. Gun sales went through the roof immediately after the election.

This was because most of us out here saw through the rhetoric and could clearly see a Dem congress and Left wing President who would love to impose greater gun controls. There had been comments about complete bans or full registration and the use of ammunition to control guns, if registration could not be accomplished. These comments by Dem leaders and left wing groups circulated like wildfire on the internet. Most folks I know who started “hoarding guns and ammo” did so because they did not want to suffer future registration requirements or control over their ammunition supplies.

Paranoid, maybe a little. But I suggest it is too early to know for sure. Those who hoarded food, gold and silver in the early 70’s looked pretty damn smart by the early 80’s but silly by the late 80’s.

Gun control, much as I’d love it to be, will never be implemented in this country, never. That I think is our reality. The influence of the NRA is far too pervasive – they pump as much money and/or threats into Democrats as they do Republicans.

The NRA is the country’s largest gun control organization. They are the only thing standing between the majority of the gun owners and “justice” for the victim disarmament extremists… in government and elsewhere. Gun-haters should get on their knees and lick the boots of the NRA for keeping them safe. So far.

The number affected or the legal status of the area is not relevant. United States Military personnel held law abiding citizens at gun point and confiscated their weapons. I emphasize, law abiding citizens doing no harm to others. Simply occupying their own property.

Just one is to many as far as I am concerned. After all, epidemics start with one infection, don’t they!

Until a stressed law abiding citizen does turn on them, they have no right to take that person’s gun. I don’t imagine that the stressed law abiding citizen would have much of a chance against the only Americans legally allowed to carry automatic weapons. I am always amazed when people have some rationale for why it is OK for government to act as thugs. They had no legitimate reason to take guns away from people in that area.

Your response astonishes me. In the days after Katrina when there was clearly chaos and a lack of order and law why, in order to establish rule and order and law the government had to ensure that they could both halt the rampant crime and looting but also prevent vigilantism.

Let me add some personal insight to this issue. I live north of New Orleans on the North Shore of Lake Ponchartrain. I did not evacuate mostly because of the line of work I am in. New Orleans was a war zone. I have serious doubts that all the events that took place will ever be unearthed, and that is not necessarily a bad thing, but when the law officials and National Guard forcably took weapons from law abiding citizens it left those law abiding citizens unprotected. In one instance that stands out in my memory, there was an elderly lady who had successfully fended off 2 prior attempts to rob her by using the pistol she had. When the “officials” came in force, and pointing automatic firearms at her she relinquished her weapon. The next day she was victomized/robbed at her residence. In the area where I live north of Lake Ponchartrain, there was virtually no looting…everywhere you would go people/neighborhoods sported signs…”You Loot, We Shoot”. The Parish Sheriff thanked the local residents for the valuable assistance. I don’t know how more black and white it can get.

You can find a ‘for instance’ in everything – same thing I get kicked in the teeth for all the time. Don’t give me this war zone crap and then tell me that law enforcement had no right to enforce the rule of law.

Going into someone’s home, when that person is not enacting any form of aggression against anyone, only looking to protect themselves and their property, and taking away their ability to do so is not preventing looting or stopping vigilantism.

Absolutely NOT. Had they be in public with firearms, maybe. You are guaranteed the right to be secure in your home and property.
Can they search your home without a warrant? Even during an “emergency”?

Did you know over 100 US citizens have died wrongfully by police serving “no knock” warrants?

In LA during the OJ riots, law abiding citizens barricaded their neighborhoods and business’ to prevent the looters from taking over. Some of these citizens did indeed parade thier street with firearms in full view and signs posted stating they would shoot if provoked. Those neighborhoods were left alone while adjacent neghborhoods were ripped apart. Their property and families were left unharmed as the looters concentrated on the “easy prey”. My family will not be on the “easy prey” list in any catastrophic event that may happen.

Two different arguments – you’re using the example of ‘no knock warrants’ in the context of the N.O. war zone post Katrina. Try again.

In a war zone – those charged with implementing and enforcing the rule of law have every obligation to ensure their own safety and of the citizenry. The ability of them to effectively do this is inherently reduced by not starting from the whole and working backwards. Sad as it may have seemed to watch – there is a reason you saw the Columbine kids escaping with police guns pointed at them – they were not in a position to assume anyone was not a gunman.

No, they were NOT “doing their jobs”; they were violating an oath they took to uphold the Constitution from “domestic enemies” like the ones who ordered them to steal weapons. If they had been doing their jobs they would have seized the people who gave the illegal order. They failed miserably at “doing their jobs” and instead did the jobs of terrorists.

About 1200 guns were seized, by police officers who “demanded entry” to their homes,and under threat of arrest or force, made them surrender any/all firearms.
Area was declared a disaster, police had fled and didn’t return for several days.

Read “Lessons from Argentina’s Economic Collapse” – a link was posted to it by BF in yesterday’s blog. It gives many reasons why having a defense mechanism in the event of an economic collapse is vital – be it a gun, a knife, a club with a spike, an axe, or simply your bare hands. And it wasn’t to protect against the government, it was to protect one’s family from thugs and criminals and those who didn’t prepare themselves prior to the collapse and therefore were desperate (i.e. you).

I don’t know what “dogs balls” is? I wasn’t around for the GD so I don’t know. If I had to guess, and based on the stories I have heard from my grandparents, people shot their own food, protected themselves from thugs and bandits, couldn’t buy much sugar, it was really dry, people were broke, but in general the system kept working albeit unefficiently and uneffectively.

Ultimately, I don’t rely on anyone to protect and care for my family other than me. I wouldn’t consider myself a man if I acted otherwise. I will obey the laws of the land in my own self-interest, but their is a point that I will not cross. I will not give up my firearms, my bow and arrow, my knives, my clubs, etc. I just won’t. I will not leave myself and my family defenseless.

I have seriously considered what I would do if Katrina hit my area and the police showed up to take away my firearms. In total honesty, I would hide them first and lie. If that didn’t work, I would fight to my last breath defending my home and my family whether the intruders represented the government or some other form of criminal.

That is what America means to me. Don’t mess with me or my freedom, whether you think it’s for my own good or not. Because, in all honesty, who the hell gave you the right to decide what is best for me? Are you God?

Some of the worst atrocities committed in the history of the world were committed for the greater good.

You have contributed much. You have a different idea that you present. You present another argument. You present it well and debate in a civil manner. You add much in the ….ut-oh…”diversity” of the blog. I like this much.

HA! “dogs’ balls”. Nice. I believe I will use that in conversation today.

“Because, in all honesty, who the hell gave you the right to decide what is best for me? Are you God?”

Nope – simply trying to offer a different perspective with some sense wrapped around it. The danger in Boards like this where you aren’t challenged in your thinking is that everything folds into itself. USW actually becomes the USW-Messiah or the USW-prompter or whatever clever saying you have – the lot of the group chugs along and never turns the radio station to think and seriously, seriously ask themselves – ‘is there another POV that is not just different, but maybe considers things I never have’?

It was not meant as a direct attack on you. I do appreciate your dialogue as it gives me a sense of how someone could actually be for gun control. I still don’t understand where you (RH) are coming from and think you are way off base, but I do respect your right to your own opinion.

I would never dream of forcing my morality on another, just make sure and don’t force yours (government) on me.

That tells me that you think we are sheep. The point of this blog is that we are FREE THINKING people who do not not wish to be led around by the nose. Can you honestly tell me that from the intelligent conversation you’ve observed here that you think we are mindless? We rail against Obama and his ilk and you think that we would blindly follow someone else because their POV is the same as ours? You haven’t really paid a lot of attention to the posts on this blog if you think that. Are most of us like minded? Yes, to a point. But I would no more blindly follow USW than I would blindly follow BF. I have the capability to think for myself. Just because we don’t agree with your POV Ray, doesn’t mean that we are mindless.

My same point that if you’re crazy do you know you’re crazy? (tongue in cheek)

If I thought you all were hopeless I would stop coming here. I was passing on that wherein everyone has the same POV and never considers alternate viewpoints then it becomes a follow the leader exercise. If you were to take a posting such as today’s, remove everything posted by myself and anyone else who doesn’t agree completely with the views (including BF) and all replies to such then what would you have Kristian? Would someone look at that and say you look like sheep? I dunno. I do know I’ve asked others to join in, they’ve looked at a few posts and said “yeah, no thanks. One set of views that rarely if ever will engage something not in their spectrum”.

While I’m at it – its a tough to swallow to read these blogs at times that pretend to be objective. I get more engaged when it starts to appear that no stone is left unturned. However, increasingly, more and more the ‘some conservative or Repubs are bad guys too’ just appears more and more as window dressing designed to give the impression of objectivity. Most of this is thinly veiled conservatism disguised as pragmatism. My two cents.

But the point is Ray there are many different POV’s on this blog, including yours. Yes, if all of the posts that didn’t share the same POV were removed it would look exactly as you say, but they aren’t removed. Like I said earlier, just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean that we are wrong, it doesn’t meant that you are wrong, it just means that we see things differently. I guess it pisses me off that those who just looked at a few posts and decided no thanks are willing to label us and deduct IQ points because we don’t believe the same way they do. Maybe if they took the time to visit here and explain their POV in a civil and respectful manner all of us might learn something.

I see what you’re saying Ray. However we don’t see the Republican Party as Conservative anymore. At best, I would consider them Moderates. There are currently only two viable Parties in the US. Neither are acceptable to me. To spout Conservativism while steadily growing the government is just a lie by another name.

Better be careful here Esom…If that party splits in two that will be the absolute worst thing that could happen to this great country. You better “find” a way to compromise. This is where “strict ideaology” becomes a liability.

You asked what is different between now and the Great Depression. During the GD we had a population that was much closer to “the farm” than we are now. In 1930 total US population was 122 mil (1930 census). Of that 53 mil people lived in “rural territory” (population <2500), 44% of the US population lived in areas where they had the opportunity to fend for themselves.

Today the US population is over 285 million people (2000 census). Of that 59 million are from “rural territory”. That is only 20% of the population able to “fend for themselves”.

What happens when the other 80% realizes that the grocery stores are out of food or worse, inflation has made their paycheck so small they can’t afford anything at the store? When you think about what gang violence has brought to our cities during times of prosperity and how jaded to that violence people are nowadays, I don’t want to even think about the possibilities during hard times.

The work ethic and morals of Americans during the Great Depression was very different than it is today. My parents’ generation was self-reliant and self-sufficient out of necessity. If they could not afford to buy it, could not make it themselves, nor barter for it, then they did without and did not complain. They endured hardships, and strove to make their lives the best they could with what they had.

Anyone in the military, past or present, who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, should check out this site http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com. It is my understanding that it is the duty of anyone who took this oath to stand down if given unlawful orders which go directly against this oath ie. disarming law abiding civilians, taking up arms against Americans, blockading cities, etc. I attended the OathKeepers meeting on Lexington Green on April 19th, the anniversary of the “shot heard round the world”, and heard some excellent speakers address this subject. It is a topic which needs to be addressed and made known to anyone who has been or is currently serving in the military. The group was just formed 6 weeks ago and is actively setting up liaisons with every branch of the military, along with Police, sheriffs and other peacekeepers to educate the members about what the oath really means, particularly in a time of national crisis within the US borders.

RH, “What exactly are you going to defend against?” Certainly, as an individual, trying to battle the military would be suicide. Let me give a brief synopsis of where I reside. Youngstown, Ohio, has been in the top ten of the FBI’s most dangerous cities for many years now. Everyday, someone is getting shot in one of the bad parts of the city. With that said, if the economy goes to crap even more than now, and inflation goes into double digits or worse, alot of people who reside in the welfare rat nests will not have money to do much, like eat. Civil unrest will explode, “lets take from those that have”, which is my side of town. Now, the cops could not handle this, and probably wouldn’t even try. From the start of this, until the National Guard steps in, it’s up to me to defend my home, daughter, and neighbors who are not well prepared.

The drug dealers from the nests are well armed, and they tend to attack in numbers. Knowing this, I have a high powered rifle w/scope and several clips to take out as many as possible at a longer distance (I am an accomplished marksman) and hope that works. If that don’t work, and things get closer than I would be comfortable with, safer, short range firepower would be needed (wouldn’t want my bullits to go through neighbors walls). Shotgun and a .45 fits this situation, and since I really don’t like these people by now, the .45 will have hollowpoints with a drop of mercury inside covered with wax. One way or the other, they will not be coming back. Does that answer your question?

Only somewhat – it is dangerous to suggest Youngstown is a microcosm of the entire country – I can understand your perspective – but we’re not only surrounded by roving bands of heavily armed drug dealers.

I wondered how long it would be before THAT subject came up. Let me say before anyone else does. I don’t give a SH!! what Bush, Cheney, his cronies or anyone else up to and including Obama himself does to Terrorists!!!

Waterboarding? I can think of many far, far worse things that they could have done to them worse than that. They stopped hundreds of more attacks, including one on an LA skyscraper with the info gained.

After what those a__holes did on 9\11, we needed intelligence. Does anyone think they were going to give that info to us just because we asked them in a stern tone of voice?

Yes, Obama said that we should be above those tactics. That it makes us no better than they are. Well my answer is that is exactly what they know we will do. We will try to be the good guys, thus letting them get away with whatever they want to so we can hold our heads high. Well Screw that!

I won’t try to say that they were right for what they may have done. But I do say it was necessary. And if you had asked anyone on 9\12 they would have said the same thing. We are not nice guys and it’s time we stopped pretending we are. The bad guys out there need to learn the lesson that YOU DON’T SCREW WITH THE USA! OR WE’LL SCREW YOU BACK!

Any group or action of people which shows doubt of government and its ability are called “extremists”.

So, simply by the act of having firearms means you do not trust the government to protect you – therefore, you’re an extremist.

By the act of buying gold means you do not trust government money – therefore, you’re an extremist.

By the act of building food and supply stores means you do not trust the government to maintain order – therefore, you’re an extremist.

By protesting for your rights means you do not believe government has given you your rights means you are an extremist.

When you are acting, measure your action against the point of view of government. If the action could be construed to doubt government, government will see that as an extremist action. Therefore, be cautious and careful of doing such acts overtly and in public view.

The last thing you need is to paint a red circle on your back – if people know you’ve acted and prepared for the fall of government, they will break down your door – knowing you have supplies, weapons and gold.

“Any group or action of people which shows doubt of government and its ability are called “extremists”.” – that is not a fact – it is your opinion. Therefor the rest of your argument you base on this opinion is also opinion and not fact.

# Those of “Christian Identity”
# Those who “Make Numerous references to US Constitution”
# Those who “Request authority for stop”
# Those who are “defenders of the US Constitution”
# Those who have “Marxist philosophy”
# Those who support “Animals Rights”
# Those who “refuse to identify themselves”
# Those who “claim driving is a right not a priviledge”
# and don’t forget “Lone Individuals”

# Those of “Christian Identity”
# Those who “Make Numerous references to US Constitution”
# Those who “Request authority for stop”
# Those who are “defenders of the US Constitution”
# Those who have “Marxist philosophy”
# Those who support “Animals Rights”
# Those who “refuse to identify themselves”
# Those who “claim driving is a right not a privilege”
# and don’t forget “Lone Individuals”

Your interpretation is emotional not logical and lack context – that is what happens when you read between the lines – I am guilty of this as well. Would you give that ‘those who support animal rights’ is not the same as ‘those who commit terrorist acts in the name of terrorism’?

No Ray, it is the logical extension of the argument the govt is making. This report is repleat with such inuendo and subtle guilt by association.

This is one of the worst govt documents I have ever seen. I would like to point out that in my humble opinion this report was not started before January. Surviellance and analysis surely, but not the first part of this report. It has all the appearance of a report hastily prepared and not very well thought out. There is a point towards the end where you can see a change in tone. I suspect a completely different author, one more analytical and less conclusionary. Perhaps the remnant of the original work.

Perhaps most disturbing to me is the admission that the govt is monitoring all websites discussing these issues and then using that information to reach conclusions regarding risk assessments.

No. This is fishing. Something the left was railing against with the partriot act.

My key point is not so much they are doing some monitoring but that it sounds as though they are generalizing in the conclusions based on broad traffic. Not on specific traffic of target groups.

The Bush Admin increased monitoring of earth first, elf and other domestic terrorist groups. But that is not who is being discussed in this report. The “militia” movement has virtually dried up in much of the country. The major 1990’s groups referred to in the report don’t exist anylonger (nazis gone from Idaho, militias gone and others greatly reduced in Idaho and most of Montana.

Are the remnants of these groups using the situation to recruit. Hell yes. Are these groups really violent? Not many. The militias in Idaho and Montana were about defending against chaos, anarchy and then if needed a tyrannical govt. They were not offensive in nature but were treated as such by the govt.

The references to past violence against banks, govt buildings and infrastructure was very interesting. Can you tell me where this happened and who was behind it? In the northwest this all happened in the 80’s and very early 90’s and was tied to one group, Neo Nazi in north Idaho. This group hasn’t existed for many years. So why the linkage in this report between past actions of that group and assumed potential increase in this activity by the same groups, that don’t exist.

BF, I’m far from being as booksmart as many of the folks here are. When you suggest that people prepare, they should do so knowing their capabilities and their limitations. It does no good to buy a gun if you can’t use it effectively and safely.

I am responsible for deciding if I can use a weapon. That is clearly the meaning of every comment made on this subject before yours. The original was “they should do so knowing their capabilities and their limitations”. Seems pretty darn clear to me that we were discussing “our own” capabilites as in they should know theirs.

So if your question was who decides if “YOU” are qualified why did you not state that in the original?

Either the magician is at work again or you should apologize for creating controversy where none existed.

Using any tool without training is a disaster waiting to happen – and a gun is no different.

Part of preparedness is knowing how to be effective with what you’ve got.

Getting a generator, and not knowing how it starts is a waste of effort and money (ie: a neighbor bought a generator – and then wanted to use it and found out that it did not include any cables for him to connect to anything… lucky for him he found this out BEFORE he really needed it).

Same with a gun – if you don’t know how to use one safely, its probably not a good time to learn with 3 or 4 bad guys are rushing you 😉

In the repeat of the link yesterday BF (the list of 100 things), the author actually even said to adjust the list to one’s owns needs and abilities (or something to that effect), ie there was a goat or chickens listed – if you live in a city where keeping goats and chicken is not practical, you would take this off your list.

Some of what you say is a good thinking point, but what you have to remember is that what the Gov. is trying to take away with all these Memos and stuff is everything that the founding fathers said that we as a people and nation have the right to do. THAT IS GUESTION THE ACTIONS OF OUR ELECTED GOV. Let me ask this. Would you as someone to watch your home and not leave them guide line on what to do? And them when you return would you not ask them what they did in your absents? We as a people must question the people that WE put in office and hold them accountable for there actions. If not then we become the loser of our own actions

I do not think this is an organized effort by the government and/or the media.
Like the tea parties, where many people of different backgrounds came together
for one issue where they had common ground. This is a group that has similar thoughts, that now has almost complete control of out government.

Janet from another planet did not write that report. But she affected it by who did write it that she may have assigned, and who knows how his/her boss thinks, and what would appeal to her. Kennedy is faulted on the Bay of Pigs on not having any of his advisors speak against the invasion. They all thought alike.

Look at our main issues, abortion, immigration, gun control, taxes & spending.
Janet, Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow or maybe Ray Hawkins, could all write 25 words on any of these subjects and no one could tell them apart. Sorry Ray, I hope you find that humorous.

This is a group with an agenda, they have a vision of America vastly different than what the founding fathers envisioned. And they have the power to force at least part of that vision on the rest of us. It is clear the MSM, which shares that vision, will do their part to sway the masses in following.

Its interesting how that report is worded, that individual or cells are perceived as the greatest threat. Liberals were outraged over the Patriot Act, but seem silent on it now. Will it be used now against any citizen who speaks out on abortion, or the economy, or government spending? Label you a terrorist and lock you away without trial. The thing is, they don’t have to have a specific plan, they all think alike on these issues, Janet will do the same thing Nancy would have done, and so on.

So are the people they are calling right wing, but we keep using right to describe those supporting statism in another form.

If those on the left and right are “extremists” then how do you distinquish from those in the middle? Everyone else don’t stand at the exact center point of the scale, not enough room. They are spread on the both sides of center. A continuum from left to right.

That is why this is very bad work. According to the world of JAC, it should have clearly stated that:

“Groups who espouse violence against the govt may use the current economic situation and growing disatisfaction with govt to recruit additonal members. Be aware that they may target returning veterans for recruitment in order to increase their strategic and tactical capabilities. Be on the look out for increased activity by known groups ( see attached watch list) who support use of violence against other citizens, immigrants and government entities.”

Didn’t take 9 pages did it? And it clearly put out the word to law enforement to increase your level of alert and who to watch. Hard to believe I used to write govt assessments and reports like the one referenced. Maybe that is why I retired very early.

Stay Free
Yours Always
Radical Rightwing Liberal and proud member of the VDLG Party
JAC

JAC
Makes sense. What does not make sense, why issue a warning when there was no specific threat? Unless Janet is announcing a new direction Homeland Security may be taking.
MadMom said something about them being around the tea parties. And they have indicated asking officers why do you want to see my ID is a sign of being an extremist.
Are Orwell book sales going up?

Some college kids organized the tea party in our town. They did not need permits or any other law enforcement check off because they were on public property and not blocking traffic. The stood around the local federal building in front of the post office, as folks would be mailing taxes.

Some of the uniformed security guards came up to the organizers towards the end and demaned name, address, date of birth and social security numbers. The kid I discussed this with told them absolutely not and they had no right to ask. It stopped there, this time. The freaky part is the security at the Fed Bldg is contracted. So someone had to tell these guys to track down the organizers and get this info. BUT WHY????

Perhaps we wouldn’t be seeing conspiracies if the govt quite acting like conspirators!!

Life of llusion, you told me alot about the way you think with your “main isues” Socialsecurity, medicare, cost of health care and restoring a world image tarnished by an arrogant, misguided leader? These are thebig picture problems that affect far more people than the ones you listed.

Those were not my “main issues”, just handy for instances. You tell us a lot with constant “arrogant, misguided leader”. Was that Bush or Regan? Doesn’t matter as its a off subject bash. If I talk about Obama, I will try to only bring up what is relevant.

My point is there are SOME things in our government that can be fixed now, and should be, if only to make it easier to focus on the harder problems.

Inflows into gold ETFs continued to grow throughout the quarter, with investors buying a record 469 tonnes of gold, dwarfing the previous quarterly record of 145 tonnes, set in the third quarter of last year. This took the total amount of gold in ETFs to 1,658 tonnes, worth US$48.6 billion.

Anecdotal reports from coin and bar dealers also point to another very strong quarter in retail demand for coins and bars in Q1 09, after a 396% year-on-year increase in Q4 08. Dealers have continued to report shortages in the availability of official coins and small bars.

So, ponder a bit….

Record sales – blowing records out of the water… and gold went down in price…

1)”Someone” is dumping it as fast as the rest is buying it.
– however, there is so little gold ore that is actually in circulation, this would be difficult.

ETF’s are a type of ‘share’ that buys commodities at about 1/1 ratio. These were created because ‘normal’ people cannot purchase the minimum quantities of commodities on the market – who can pony up the $100,000 to buy a single contract of gold? So ETF’s sell a ‘share’ of that purchase in amounts more accessible.

ETF’s own more gold than most central banks. And they are buying the stuff as fast as they find it.

BUT – most of the ETF’s are buying certificates, not physical ore. There are only two ETF’s I personally know off that take delivery.

If a central bank is issuing certificates without the need to actually deliver physical ore – this is the equivalent of printing money. Massive inject of certificates (that may not necessarily be backed by gold) will depress the price while the purchases reach all time highs.

Gold cannot be allowed to rise, since this would bankrupt the bullion banks.

Recall that the banks lent their gold to the bullion banks who then sold it. This way the gold still is still, technically, on reserve while sold out to the market. Bullion banks cashed into the stock market with billions from the gold sales.

The markets collapsed – and the gold cannot be bought back to repay the banks if gold goes up. If the bullion banks try to buy even at a moderate rate, the price of gold will go up. So they need to trickle buy at low prices.

This is confounded by Gold bugs who do not trust governments – who buy delivered gold.

So the banks sell certificates on gold (they do not have) to keep the price down, and give a route for the bullion banks to repay the gold.

This game is a losing game for the banks – because governments continue to print money. The only way the banks can win the gold war is for government to stop inflating. Then there would be little incentive for people to buy gold as a hedge against inflation. But governments won’t stop that. So they will lose the gold war.

And to what would you attribute gold going down in price during this rise in activity? My gut tells me it doesn’t make sense, but I don’t understand the market the way that you do. Spell it out for us stupid folks 🙂

Immediately following napolitano’s outrageous statements, I started a petition demanding the immediate removal of napolitano from office. If you agree and support the now growing demands for her removal, please go here to sign the petition. > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/napolitano-must-go/ Thanks in advance for your support!

Well USW we part ways on this one. I certainly am not going to label you a “right wing extremist” leader, but I will disagree with you on these points of your post. 1)Would you really say that stockpiling of guns and ammunition” should be considered “normal human behavior”? I know many moderates who would say no to that 2)When you tout it is better “to be safe than sorry”, I see that as a defeatist attitude and you admit to having all ready made up your mind to go a different way 3) the belief that any one critical of goevernment will be considered a “right wing extremist”. Come on, that is conspiracy thinking at its best (or worst). Finally, we do have one point of agreement. Using Timothy McVeigh as the example or poster child to suspect returning Vets. Now that is way out of bounds even for a moderate like me. Now I know this opinion will create a lot of furor on this blog. But I have never been a proponent of conspiracy thinking on ANYTHING in my life. All too often it becomes a “self-fulfilling” prophecy in how you view the world. And I do not think that is why we were given our minds (to all believe the same and refuse to think things through rationally). Sorry, but I disagree with this mind set.

CF: I am curious. If we follow your line of thinking on conspiracies, at what point do we ever recognize a real one when it does exist?

The gun response was totally normal behavior. As I posted above it was not in response of a perceived invasion. It was a response to perceived constraints on supply. Of course that increases panic demand thus fullfilling the perception of shortage.

Much as happened last fall with RICE and FLOUR for a spell. I am guessing many Americans now have more rice stored in their basement than they have eaten in a life time.

Those of us who openly oppose the current state of our govt and who criticize the current administration are being labeled as “right wing extremists” by the left, media and some in govt. So is it paranoid or conspiratorial to question why this term is now in offical govt homeland security reports to law enforement organizations? Of course this goes back to the first question I asked.

Sorry, JAC I don’t buy that analogy or logic. I never have seen flour or rice utilized to take someone’s life .I do not consider it normal behavior. It is more on the order “conspiracy hysteria”. One other thing. Prove to me one thing. Who caleed you specifically a “right wing extremist”? You can’t answer that truthfully. That , however, is what “groupthink” does to even the most normal people – IF they allow it to happen.

CF you really need to get a grip on what group think really means. You keep using it here in completely the wrong context.

Apparently you don’t live where there are a large number of gun owners concerned with future restrictions. Your comment about rice killing people is ludicrous. The point was that hyped up demand due to perceived future shortages increases the perception of future shortages and thus more demand and on and on, until everyone calms down, or the supply runs out.

I don’t expect you to accept my logic nor logic in general. You would have to have a complete understanding of what it was first.

1)Would you really say that stockpiling of guns and ammunition” should be considered “normal human behavior”? I know many moderates who would say no to that
That depends on who is defining stockpiling. The government’s definitions tend to be on the extreme side, meaning that someone buys 100 rounds and a second gun and they are considered stockpiling. I can burn through 100 rounds in an afternoon at the range easily. So if we are talking about the government’s definition of stockpiling, then yes I do think it is normal behavior.

2)When you tout it is better “to be safe than sorry”, I see that as a defeatist attitude and you admit to having all ready made up your mind to go a different way
Go a different way on what? Better safe than sorry means that I would rather have guns and not need them than vice versa. It has nothing to do with the direction I have chosen or even with the direction of the country. It has to do with what I think is a coming crash of our economic system. Dem think massive spending will stop it, but I think their plans are failing propositions. That isn’t about choosing a political side, it is about seeing the reality of where the economy is heading these days. I hope we recover, but I will prepare for if we don’t. That isn’t defeatist, that is wise planning. And it is a result of self sufficient thinking, which tonight’s post will be on.

3) the belief that any one critical of government will be considered a “right wing extremist”. Come on, that is conspiracy thinking at its best (or worst).
Perhaps you need to go back and watch the video of the CNN gal at the tea parties. People upset with government and Fox news, both accused of being extremists in her commentary. Even you, my friend, just a week ago, claimed that the people posting on this site were fringe radicals. I appreciate you giving government the benefit of the doubt, but I stopped being able to do that about 20 years ago. Soon enough, something you do will become attacked and you may feel a little more like I do.

USW, not much time so just one question for you. Twenty years ago, what government (who was really in control), who was really to blame (not just what most people afraid of their own government thought) and most importanly, do you really think the same type of people are still in control? Most people like me would say “if so vote them out”. “Groupthink” scares me USW. Always has, always will. That is why I do not attend church. Nobody is going to tell me how or what to believe. I’ll figure it out myself. And be thankful I was given a mind of my own to do so.

You accuse this sight of “group think”? How is it “group think”? This site is a gathering of “individuals” who honestly speak their minds and thoughts. We rarely agree on anything at this site.

I don’t notice BF, or USW, or G-Man, or anyone else labeling you or Ray Hawkins. Yet both you and Ray have thrown out stereotypical generalizations of other individuals on this site – “extremists”, “group think”, “radical”, “conspiracy theorists”.

A word to the wise, stop this behavior. It does nothing but hurt your argument and shows that you are basing your arguments on emotion rather than on intuition.

You need to wake up mate – I’ve asked many moderate to liberal friends to join the fun here and they refuse precisely because it bears striking resemblance to group think. There are few dissenters here at all.

Calf Roper, Ray is right on the money with this one. I know I just don’t read replies to what I say. I read others comments on the variety of topic offered here. I also would catagorize the majority of comments as groupthink. Now that is NOT a label, it is a general description of you what you see and read. A huge difference.

BF, I hope you are right on how you described the intent of the site. I agree with one thing Ray said though, a site like this is much more “credible” if those of different opinions are represented on it. But to compare this site to say, Fox Forums. This one beats those hands down.

Very few dissenters because those friends you ask refuse to join the debate.

I would have to ask why they pass on the opportunity to address so many of us misguided souls at once. I think the reality is that many of them are not interested in hearing opinions other than those that agree with them. I would say that every counter point you provide is given proper consideration and discussed based on facts. Why would your pals refuse to debate under these rules?

I know that I am committing “sin” and are speaking for them, but I think many people feel something like this is a waste of time. Kind of like voting for a third party candidate. So what if you voted your conscience. What good did it really do? After a while debate becomes, just that, debate. I don’t think it is because they only want their opinions expressed or discussed. Because in the end, what it doid it really matter anyway?

what government (who was really in control),
The US Government, Reagan was in office, and despite his belief in shrinking government the system didn’t allow it. I learned a lot there. That was not the extent of my learning.

who was really to blame (not just what most people afraid of their own government thought)
Lots of people to blame. On both sides of the aisle. you ask too general of a question to get a better answer than that.

and most importanly, do you really think the same type of people are still in control?
Not only the same “type” of people. Check the names of the people in Congress. The are not the same “type of people”, they are the same people, same names from the same states saying the same lies that back whatever their position of the day is.

The better question, my friend, would be what happened 20 years ago to make me lose trust in our government? That answer is easy. I learned to think for myself and use critical thinking.

USW,So have I, (learned to think for myself), and I do not like what I see either. But I still believe you have to work within the system and vote out those that are corrupt. And there are plenty of those on both sides of the fence. Now trying to get a majority to agree on who is and who is not corrupt is the tough part. Because the politicians do not know the difference btween “pork” and “the overall good ” of the nation. If the “pork” gets them constantly reelected by a narrow constituency in their district, what will they do? You and I know what they do and will continue to do. But I know one thing. The more that people split off into splinter groups etc., the more these corrupt individuals will never be held accountable. I think the system can still work OK if we all work together better. But if more and more “dillusioned people” keep splitting off into their own smaller groups that all pretty much think the same way (but away from the mainstream), then those corrupt politicians will never be held accountable.

And where have you seen anyone on this site other than BF and Kent claim that voting out those who we think are bad is not our course of action? That is exactly what I intend to happen.

I appreciate that you see the splintering as a bad move. That is not the intention here. The intention is to figure out ways to get many of those folks in the middle too see the truth of what is happening in America. So we all come here and discuss, figure out whether each of us is flawed in our beliefs, and then go out and educate those we come into contact with. I don’t understand your problem with what we are doing. It seems to me that you are not yet a believer in how bad this government has become, or how quickly Obama is making it worse, so you don’t like that we see it so extremely. One of us is wrong, either you or I, in terms of how bad things are. Personally, I hope to God that it is me.

“Groupthink” scares me USW. Always has, always will. That is why I do not attend church. Nobody is going to tell me how or what to believe. I’ll figure it out myself. And be thankful I was given a mind of my own to do so.

Unlike your church example, I do not claim that I am all knowing or that it is my way or the highway. I present a point of view that is mine. I then allow anyone who wishes to tear it apart. I am not telling anyone what to think or how to act, with the exception of demanding that people respect each other on this site. Groupthink is dangerous. So is ignoring reality because you are writing off intelligent people’s thoughts as groupthink. I welcome your points of view. But I have to be honest and say that it seems like you spend the majority of your time telling us that we aren’t credible on the site or that our topics are irrelevant because we look at history. Perhaps more time spent talking about the actual topics would garner more debate that you would find acceptable. I am 100% willing to take criticism, in this particular thread, about my take on the DHS memo and what I interpretted it to mean. Tell me where I am wrong and I will be happy to either defend my position or acquiesce to your facts that defeat my position.

USW, you do a lot on this site you would not have to. I will give you that. Maybe, however, the groupthink expression wasn’t meant for you in particular. I still believe, however, the past is there to learn more from mistakes made (to not recommit) versus looking for answers to today’s problems in dated documents and leadership styles that applied to past times, not present. I guess I’m really trying to answer for myself, is debate for debate’s sake, really worth it?

And a very good extremist leader you are too. 🙂
I am looking into purchasing weapons and getting my conceal permit, not because I am gearing up for revolt, but because I am concerned that I need to get those things while I still can. Government in this country has a history of “grandfathering”, meaning that if I get things prior to restrictions, I will be able to keep those things, if not permanently, then at least for a while longer. I think that is the reason for most of the recent increases. I know most of the gun shops in Richmond are seeing higher than normal sales numbers, and “get is while you still can” is nearly the unanimous reason cited by the sales people and the purchasers.

There are also concerns about economic collapse, and with it, shortages of items. Weapons and ammo do not expire, they can be stored long term. People are buying those things in anticipation. Its not like people are going to stockpile tomatoes. But there are increasing stockpiles of canned goods and other non-perishable items, not just guns and ammo. People are taking advantage of good deals on long-term purchases and storable items. They are taking advantage of current availability levels, because they are concerned about future shortages. That is both normal and responsible human behavior. Anyone ridiculing such behavior is being silly or nefarious.

That is an example of people who known something is wrong but have no idea what to do. This is typically the reaction of those that have always trusted government to provide – and when it fails or appears to fail, the people are left to flounder into the bizarre behaviors of duct tape and plastic.

Thus, this is the warnings on this blog – prepare before the failure while understanding the government will not protect you, indeed, maybe the ones attacking you.

It’s way too late to start to prepare for a disaster on D-day minus 1.

Yesterday, we learned from the Chicago Tribune that Freddie Mac documents are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act because they contain or might compromise commercial information–that is, the proprietary insider information of a private company. Today, in the Washington Post, we learn that that private company was pressured to withhold negative information it was obligated to disclose under SEC rules. It seems that following government policy will adversely affect its bottom line, and the firm wanted to tell its remaining shareholders that.

I read in local paper yesterday that CEO of Bank of America testified in court hearings that Bernanke and Paulson told him to keep quiet about problems with the Merryl Lynch purchase. It seems ML was in much worse shape than B of A thought (to many mortgage backed securities). They made it clear that to release the info to shareholders could devastate the financial system and economy, and of course he would have caused the panic. So he did as told and now is beign prosecuted by Cuomo for failing to notify shareholders of information they needed to make informed decisions about the company. Of course the Feds finally had to give money to BofA to fix the bad deal.

Ahhhh. These little sticks we find along the way. Will we ever find the tree that is shedding them or will the tree simply dissolve, into more little sticks.

I saw something(don’t remember where/what) that suggested it was a suicide and questioned what terrible thing he knew … and didn’t want to deal with. (wish I could insert the theme from the xfiles here) They report next month … watch the shoulders not the hands …

During Katrina, I am a law-abiding citizen, you think it is the government’s right to take away the ONLY defense that I have to protect my family????

How many guns do you THINK they may have missed…how many crooks out there do you think “hid” their guns…and were able to continue their looting and raping and killing?

You could probably tell me that if I were in the situation and a criminal came to steal my foods, I should just give it to them that they will leave because the got what they came for…How about they also got a good look at my beautiful daughter and decided that each of them shouldn’t let a good opportunity pass and decided to gang-rape her. Guess what, I’m a law-abiding citizen who gave up my guns when they were seized and now, the non-law abiding citizen (crook) is going to take advantage of that! SCREW THAT Ray!

YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE (Individual or Entity) WILL MESS with my right to protect what I cherish! There IS NOTHING Ray that you can say on this subject that will make ANY SENSE to me in anyway….

Maybe you are willing to sacrifice your family to namby pamby gun control measures…I SURE AS HELL AM NOT!

Glad I hit your hot button – that way I know you’ll respond emotionally rather than logically 🙂

I can only feel for LE that must then have to decide whether you are (a) a criminal (b) a law abiding resident who poses no harm or (c) a normally law abiding resident who may act abnormally due to the stress of the situation. There is a reason they tell everyone to evacuate and get the hell out.

In Ohio, if someone enters your home without invitation, deadly force can be used with no questions asked. Under law, it is assumed that an uninvited intruder is a threat. And yes, I am a law abiding citizen, guess what I would do in this situation?

So I guess the way you guys define things there is no such thing as a state of emergency. Next time we get big snow in PA I’ll remember that and refuse to get off the State roads so they can plow. Screw ’em – its my road and I helped pay for it.

Of course there is a state of emergency. However, a state of emergency doesn’t mean martial law or confiscation of weapons. You are putting forth awfully weak arguments today Ray. You are off your game.

Define for me how a state of emergency means that it is necessary for government officials to come to a law abiding person’s home and confiscate their weapons, even though no aggression or criminal activity has taken place?

I suppose I’ll repeat my example for the umpteenth time – could care less if you use LA or NO as the place of record. Wherein an ‘area’ is in a state of lawlessness, and wherein LE is called upon to restore order, secure the area and enable emergency responders to do their work – I am incredulous that it seems okay to rob the ability of LE to disarm any and all until they can be assured that (a) is a non threat versus (b) who may be a threat. You can have your damn guns back, but at least give these people some benefit of the doubt – they are there trying to protect you.

And US – well – this is what I mean by people tend to stay away from this site because of the close mindedness – the mere suggestion that there would ever, ever, ever be a case for reasonable search and seizure yields nothing more than ‘over my dead body’. That my friend – is WEAK.

You said the key word here…”TRYING” to protect you. The root of my argument is they can try and try, but unless they know up front that someone is PLANNING on being violent towards me, they cannot physically be there to protect me. Thus my need to be able to protect myself. Even those who are for gun control don’t place a high value on my life, I really do.

All who were left scratching their heads when Obama chose this obedient toady to head Homeland Security now can get a handle on it: a serious appointee, focused upon real terrorist threats (not imaginary, partisan ones i.e. the TEA parties) -like, say, a Rudolph Giuliani- wouldn’t have been a willing collaborator in a sham report trashing US vets for shameful political purposes.

Napolitano’s qualification for this job was purely being a liberal Obama sycophant… certainly not any skills, insight, or ability.

Her recent statements on Canadian border security illustrate how incompetent and puzzled she really is- completely lacking the credentials to be in charge of protecting our country from the likes of Al Qaida.

Trouble is, the narcissist Obama needs to be surrounded by mindless drones to confirm his omnipotence and pollyanna world view. But such appointments as Napolitano and Panetta to vital national security posts are a show of weakness that will surely encourage terrorists and other rogue characters who see America as their enemy- no matter how hard Barack tries to schmooze them.

Anyone who expected The One to place the nation’s practical defense interests above those of his own political security and radical agenda hasn’t looked too closely at how he got this far in the first place.

I just can’t get over the number of people who were part of the losing side and their flailing emotional rhetoric when it comes to Obama and/or this administration. All they seem capable of is labeling, name calling and misrepresentation. I wonder how they think they will ever win again? And Mr. Reagan? A good man for his time. But we have fast-forwarded some 30 years and are currently in the 21st century. Why don’t you join us there?

You really don’t get it. I was on the losing side. and so were you. This isn’t just about Obama. When you get past this liberal versus conservative thing and see it as an analysis of government and government actions, you will be closer to understanding our position. I think this administration is more dangerous than the last one. So I point out what I see.

So long as your reason for dismissing my thoughts is because of what party you think I belong to, you are going to be lost on the debates. If Obama instituted a law saying Purple dogs are royalty, and I point it out, am I less correct simply because I oppose Obama. You are too busy letting partisanship get in the way of rational discussion.

And I think this administration is far better than the last one (of which I am a registered voter of). Because this leader is truly for the middle class American and is willing to take on the issues, problems and concerns that the last administration ignored. Because they were stuck in their ivory tower and completely got out of touch. I constantly have tried to explain and show my boss that this man will govern in the middle. He is painted as to the left. But he is not. The only time in my posts that “parties” come up is because of the way the two have a tendancy to think. But nobody asked the people in the middle. The “losing” side (sorry you can’t ignore reality) ignored that group and its problems for too many years. And they paid the ultimate price. But to look for solutions and get them implemented outside the current confines of the system? Is that really realistic USW?

As I’ve said before, I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and truely hoped he would make the changes he promised during his campaign. Primarily that he was going to go line by line through all items crossing his desk and eliminate the pork projects. That didn’t happen but instead a bunch of pet projects are getting signed with zero hesitation on his part. I will admit I didn’t vote for him, his lack of experience in just about everything and his constant flip flopping on issues turned me off quickly. Elections for a very long time have been more like the Super Bowl. “I don’t care what Mr. X beliefs on the issues are as long as my team wins!” and that is how people are voting…for the party, not the issues. To date this has been the only blog I have found that respectfully debates current issues. Myself, I come here to get other peoples perspectives on the issues so I can be more informed to make a decision. Granted there are a few issues I won’t change my opinion on (defending my family however I need to being one) but I do try to understand everyones point of view and then come to my own conclusions using the information from discussions I read here and a few other places. That is what I beleive blogs like this intend people to do.

“I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt and truely hoped he would make the changes he promised during his campaign. Primarily that he was going to go line by line through all items crossing his desk and eliminate the pork projects” – how many days has this guy been in office? Its as if he is either (a) changing too much or (b) he hasn’t changed everything. Which is it? How long did your benefit of the doubt last?

I know USWep has invited many with alternative views to visit. It appears most cannot last.

I think USWep had the most appropriate cartoon of Buckley saying something like:

“The left claim they are willing to listen to other points of view, and are eternally surprised that they find there exists other points of view.”

Chris was an example. A really bright guy. Incredibly hypocritical. “Good for me, but not for you” was his underlying belief system.

On this site, there is general agreement that government is not working.

The big debates (primarily with me kicking sand in everyone’s eyes) is between how much government is the ‘right’ amount and what role government should play.

I think there are probably 5 major groups of multi-dimensional overlap – from Kent and I at “zero/zero” to you at “4/3” and GA at “2/4”. JAC is probably 0.25/0.25, and so on. I’m of course just guessing at everyone else’s numbers except mine.

The ‘leftist’ blogs quickly degrade to name-calling in place of argument – get’s boring.

When I parodied the “Princess Bride” characters, it was so much fun – it was very much how I felt – introduced to this site by a kindred spirit, Kent – he’s the Grandfather character – wise with a twinkle in his eye who knows the story – and then the other major characters – crushed by USWep the Giant’s weight and strength, expertly fenced by Spaniard’s of JAC, LoI, Esom, Peter and so many others… and sharing poison with Chris and his ilk.

This blog (sometimes referred to as “MY BLOG”) forced me to even sharper clarity of my beliefs – and reaffirming that it is possible for people to live together even with differences of core principles consistently applied.

CanadianFox said
April 23, 2009 at 2:35 pm e
BF, I hope you are right on how you described the intent of the site. I agree with one thing Ray said though, a site like this is much more “credible” if those of different opinions are represented on it. But to compare this site to say, Fox Forums. This one beats those hands down.

I actively solicit other sites on a regular basis trying to get other alternative viewpoints engaged. What BF said above ends up being the case more often than not. Many on the left I invite are stunned at the stupidity of those who do not agree that expansion of government, the growth of the nanny state, etc is a BAD thing.

I have offered to let people from the left write guest commentaries. I have offered to have debates leveled on nothing but facts and logic. Thus far no one is willing to do so. Now don’t get me wrong, if I was on the left, believed in big government, and thought I might have to try to defend that position against this group, I would bail too. Because THIS group, while not in agreement about a lot of things, is thus far made up of people opposed to that mentality. And here is the bigger problem, we think for ourselves and are not stupid. So leading us by the nose cannot happen, and that is where many liberals fall apart. But I am sure hoping for the day when I can have 10-20 of them debating the issues with us. What better way to learn from each other.

Big goverment has been with us for quite some time. And as our population continues to grow,ages etc., I don’t really see how to change that. Now streamline, combine, reduce, achieve a better balance. Now maybe those things can happen. But to reduce it to alevel of past eras? I see no way that could ever happen. It is like I said in another post. Learn from the past’s mistakes. Learn from Europe’s past and present mistakes. Modify our system to be abetter one. But do not go back to the past to find a magic bullet answer. It is simply not there. I too wish we could quit thinking in terms of left vs right vs middle etc. We need to find common agreement on what is not just good for today, but how what it will affect the next generation too. That is why I hate it when people use Reagan as an example of what to do. He unleashed the economic power of the baby boomers when they were in their peak earning years. I do not remember him saying anything about any answers when that economic force was ready to retire. AS civilizations grow and age, government will always want to grow with it. Achieving the proper balance is very tough. It is my firm belief that our current President will help get us there if we hang together, work together and hold are “immediate” political reps accountable. Now the hard part. How do we define accountable?

CF: You are struggling with the wrong questions. First you need to decide if VLDG is right, or no govt, given what we know of current govts and the nature of freedom.

Your answer, yes or no, will then provide a differenct set of acceptable options in getting from where we are to where we want to go.

There may only be a couple of folks here who think we should go all the way, now. And even then I am not sure it is what they wish, only what they think can not be avoided.

I do remember Reagan and congress making changes to Soc. Security in the 80’s just because of the boomer bubble.

Could you please provide concrete examples or some basis for your faith in Mr. Obama reducing the impact our govt is having on our lives and liberty? If he doesn’t reduce it he is not working towards anything remotely resembling what I would consider a “proper balance”. Sorry, just can’t go there with you.

I’m going to stay with Ray H. instead. There’s a little farming town west of Melbourne I really liked. Fertile land and good water, even during the dry season. And golf everwhere.

I am serious and curious about how you think the current president is going to strike the balance you described.

CF,
You see no way to reduce government to the level it was in the past. I agree with that statement. I do not agree to not try to reduce it to the smallest practical level.

Example, US postal system, very poorly run. Compare to UPS or FedX. Phase it out or sell it to a private company.

Education, charter schools have been proven to out perform public, would make sense to expand them and offer vouchers,
our current government is instead trying to expand public schools and intends to bring pre-K under its control.

Time and again private for profit companies out perform the government. Get the government out of the way and you would see Change we all could believe in.

I disagree. His own peers voted him the most far left Senator in Washington. A leopard doesn’t change his spots that quickly. I have read his books, they were not from the center. But let’s suppose that he is, as you claim, wanting to govern from the center. Those passing the legislation he is signing into law are not. Pelosi and Reid, as the leaders in Congress are FAR left. The economic stimulus bill was far left. The moves to take control of private companies have been far left. The proposed reinstitution of the fairness doctrine is far left. A DHS report on the radical right while not acknowledging that many of those traits have absolutely NOTHING to do with the christian right or conservative movements is far left. HR1388 is far left. Giving Obama the power to shut down the internet is far left. Blaming every single ill in America on “the previous administration” is far left. I can give examples all day. How far do you want me to go? And is he doing a single thing to stop any of this far left madness? No he is signing it into law.

Want to prove to me that you are in the center Mr. Obama? How about you come out and make the following statement:

My fellow Americans, I have come to realize that my statements over the last several months have been devisive and inaccurate. I have fallen into the trap of blaming every ill of America on the previous administration and the Republicans. I am here before you today to admit my mistake. The situation that we find ourselves in today is the result of gross negligence and inappropriate actions from both the Republican and Democratic parties. It is the result of a government that has not listened to the middle of America and instead catered to lobbyists and big business. This is not a Republican trait, but instead exists on both sides of the aisle. I came to you with a promise of bringing change to Washington. In that vein I am asking you to use your vote to oust every single sitting member of Congress. Change can come to Washington, but not as long as Congress remains the same. The time has come for their replacement. Together, America, we truly can change the face of government.

But to look for solutions and get them implemented outside the current confines of the system? Is that really realistic USW?

I imagine that at one time the idea of making a declaration of Independence was viewed as outside the constraints of the current system too. But more importantly I am operating within the current confines of the system. How exactly would you say that I am not? I am not sure I understand.

USW, I thought about this last night. I want to thank you for all your work you put into this site. The weather is getting nice where I live, my job is getting much busier (that is good news for us all), and I think you know by now how I feel about debating issues (especially from the past) just for the sake of debate. So I just want you to know I’m signing off at least through the summer and fall. There is just too much to do, too much life to live to be tied to a computer debating issues that everyone has a different view on. Thanks agin. CF

USW, one thing I forgot to mention. I read a lot and I think it helps me with “big picture” thinking. If you have the time read Robert Littell’s book “Vicious Circle”. It explains better than I can why “living and thinking in the past” scares the hell out of me. There are way too many “sheep” in this world to make me feel comfortable. I do not want to see that happen in this great country. Thanks again, CF

I suppose I’ll repeat my example for the umpteenth time – could care less if you use LA or NO as the place of record. Wherein an ‘area’ is in a state of lawlessness, and wherein LE is called upon to restore order, secure the area and enable emergency responders to do their work – I am incredulous that it seems okay to rob the ability of LE to disarm any and all until they can be assured that (a) is a non threat versus (b) who may be a threat. You can have your damn guns back, but at least give these people some benefit of the doubt – they are there trying to protect you.

And US – well – this is what I mean by people tend to stay away from this site because of the close mindedness – the mere suggestion that there would ever, ever, ever be a case for reasonable search and seizure yields nothing more than ‘over my dead body’. That my friend – is WEAK.

I have not said that there is never a case for reasonable search and seizure. You need to see that video. Where is Kent when we need him? Dude, they tackled and beat a grandmother because she had an unloaded pistol. She didn’t have it out brandishing it. It was in a drawer. When they came to her door and asked her if she had any weapons, she said yes and got it out for them. She was bruised on her face and her side. It was a gross abuse of power.

If someone is in their home, not flashing a gun around, how is that reasonable search and seizure? Many of those people DID NOT get their guns back. They were not given something showing a receipt of weapons from LE, nothing. The guns were just taken.

Dude, I am not close minded. I am willing to hear any argument. But it has to be rooted in facts. I have seen that video. You apparently have not. So I assume that you hold your opinion because you have not seen the video. I don’t think you are stupid. I don’t think you can’t make a point. I just think you are granting a pass to LE that was acting well outside the authority they are afforded. And you aren’t willing to consider that perhaps they shouldn’t be getting a pass? People keep accusing me of being close minded when the reality is that I haven’t railed against EVERYTHING. I pick where I see a problem, such as this situation and I defend my position. And because I force you to prove that I am wrong, I am branded close minded.

If close minded means that I will not accept an opposing point of view without being proven wrong, then I guess I am. But I see that as being logical and debating on merit. Jesus dude, I am more willing to concede that I am wrong on any point I have made than just about every person I know. But you have to prove me wrong. You have to present something that shows the weakness of my argument. I research these articles A LOT, which means I am well founded in facts surrounding the case I make. That does, in fact make it difficult to debate me because you are going to have to research and find refuting evidence.

Do you have any idea how many articles I write where I have to dismiss what I believed to be true because in researching I found different data than what I thought I would find? I came into writing this one with the distinct belief that there was an attack on vets. I was wrong and stated so in the article. Can you find a single time in all the debates over the last month, where someone has actually presented me with a single proven fact to dispute my position where I close-mindedly dismissed that fact? Even once? I don’t think you can. CF and you tell me your opinion on something and I try to tell you why I believe it is wrong. PROVE ME WRONG. I am willing to provide solid information to back up my opinion. When the opposing side does not do so, why am I supposed to change my mind?

The grey is what helped give the liberal lonney toons their power because they used the grey as an excuse to move their agendas forward relying on the black and whites to give sway due to their tolerance.Its good to see people waking up to see that.

Point was getting too muddied thats all. Time for a new horse to kick around. FWIW I actually think most of the folks here are moving to your political philosophies (or lack thereof) – they just don’t know it yet (and yes – I shall now – DUCK!)

Very sad story – a story that never happens if no one had guns to start with – but I guess this is like abortion – we’re too far down the road to go back. Susan may have killed the gunman. She may also have missed and killed another patron.

It is erroneous for me to state that any one person is close-minded – only that this forum shows characteristics of such. As for the video – no I have not seen it – but I’d caution that one incident does not a sweeping conclusion make. To the point of facts – here is the tough part – this is a blog. Not a work of academic rigor or peer review. While I applaud the extensive research I am sure you do as part of most postings, clearly there are some where you’re simply offering opinion and interpretation of something. The preponderance of this “V” post was opinion and interpretation – its tough to have discourse when response to the original posting is also mostly opinion or personal observation but is thus rejected or beaten down because it is merely so (e.g. ‘back up what you say with facts – why should I if what I am countering is any more fact than what I offer”). Now – if someone responds to a posting from the few of us moderates or liberals and states something they perceive to be factual to counter me – then sure – I should be able to say ‘please back this up with facts’ w/o being made to look an asshole. I’d hope we don’t decompose into semantics here, but man is tough to offer an opposing view when those you offer it to consider you wrong from ‘go’ simply because your view is not theirs and it is opposing – Buckley’s words work both ways.

A final note – PLEASE ALL GUN FOLKS HERE HELP ME OUT

My mind read several postings as insinuating or stating that many law abiding citizens were stripped of their guns – implying that at gunpoint LE unlawfully took their weapons. Ok – so I did my searches, and while there are a plethora of gun lobby type sites / right wing sites / right wings sources / NRA videos on the subject – I’m not sure I consider them objective. What I did find was this from the USA Today article:

“NEW ORLEANS (AP) — City officials have agreed to return hundreds of firearms that police officers confiscated in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, part of a deal to resolve a lawsuit filed by gun lobbying groups. The settlement agreement filed Tuesday in federal court calls for the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation to drop their case if the city follows a plan for returning guns to owners who had them seized by police after the Aug. 29, 2005, hurricane. Both sides also are asking U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to sign off on the pact and issue a permanent injunction barring the city from seizing lawfully possessed firearms. Barbier didn’t immediately rule on the agreement, which doesn’t involve a monetary award. Police department spokesman Bob Young said it has stored 552 guns that were confiscated after Katrina, through Dec. 31, 2005. Police have said they only took guns that were stolen or found in abandoned homes.”

Now – can someone please tell me if this is close to the fact or is this complete bullshit? I did search the New Orleans city website and found jack squat. I do find the last sentence interesting in that contradicts much of what has been stated here.

An interesting fact search that you did. I know only of a couple of videos that I watched and some of the reports that I read, but I don’t recall the sources right now and I certainly can’t claim that I know there was no bias or lobby group behind them. I remember trying to research it more when I debated it with Kent and he was able to squarely beat me down on this.

And I do offer that as an example of where I held an opinion, it was contrary to some of my opinion now. Kent was able to offer several compelling pieces that I found to be credible. One of them was the video that has been mentioned so many times today. Kent blew my argument out of the water, and I was then forced to reevaluate my position. His website is listed in my political blogs list. You could shoot him a message and he can provide a massive amount of information. It is one of his keystone topics.

I don’t know – I wish they would show the whole damn video. I will offer that seeing it the first time I was appalled – but I had to throw the skeptic hat and ask if any of it could be b.s. Assuming the preceding shots were of her neighborhood and house I have to wonder why they were there at all – unless they were there to ‘check on her’ and things escalated for a reason we may never know. Sucks.

Fact: The entire video was 7 minutes and 49 seconds long and includes footage of other folks who had guns taken. One antique gun was destroyed by police on the spot, per the man interviewed.

Next to this video is a list of others also showing guns being taken. One shows the National Guard going though homes and handcuffing law abiding citizens, taking their guns and then letting them go. So what law did they break that allowed for “lawful detention”

So the facts matter, unless they conflict with an open minded opinion that LE was justified in all they did just because there was an emergency. Fact, the constitution does not include exceptions for emergencies, only invasion and insurrection. The facts are against you Ray yet you continue to throw more straw dogs into the arena. I suggest you look at the video again with your list in hand. You might have two unanswered questions left and one does not mean a thing. Who made the video is irrelavent and it sure isn’t going to tell us more than the tape itself. It can cause us to question motive and create suspicision about editing, but that is all it can tell us.

Here is the fact Ray. Law Enforcement and military personnel violated the constitutional rights (gun ownership, warrantless search, and arrest without cause) of US citizens, just because they were told to by higher govt officials, who decided to do it because they thought it necessary and they knew they could. What law gives LE the authority to violate our rights because they think it is a good idea? What law gives govt the power to force citizens to abandon their home when the disaster has passed? And now the city is in big trouble with the court over the guns and other civil rights violations. I guess the court didn’t have your list of questions either. Or maybe they didn’t need them because the facts didn’t require chasing rabbits, with dogs that won’t hunt.

“Fact: The entire video was 7 minutes and 49 seconds long and includes footage of other folks who had guns taken. One antique gun was destroyed by police on the spot, per the man interviewed.”

– The only fact is the length of the video. The video would have had more credibility if the other statements can be corroborated which I do not believe they are. Also – and I want to be very clear on this – there was an attempt to dispute my position based one video – a video more than one person on this board pointed to as evidence that I was wrong. Now – the video itself is 7+ minutes long – the edited footage with respect to the elderly woman is less than 20 seconds with copious and possibly relevant pieces missing. All the questions I asked were reasonable and appropriate.

– It doesn’t matter who made the video? Huh? You’re not serious are you? That statement alone supports comments I have made elsewhere in this thread regarding collective close-mindedness. It matters absolutely who made the video – it goes to the credibility of the source. If there are ill motives involved they most certainly would edit out footage that doesn’t support the objective of the video.

– I will not sit here and debate constitutional law regarding evacuations in a disaster. I will only share that it frustrates me to no end that:

(a) the process was broken enough that people that wanted to get out, could not get out and suffered (or died) as a consequence, and;

(b) people were told to evacuate refused because they’d ‘ride it out’ or ‘they had enough supplies’ or whatever the excuse is. Emergency responders and volunteers have a hard enough time w/o having to deal with jackasses that now have to be plucked from rooftops, cars and trees because they refused to what was requested of them. Maybe we cannot force them – maybe we should. But to place the lives more people at risk that have to come rescue you should be a crime. All those evacuations we watched breathlessly on the news – who pays for that? Yep – all of us do. To the folks outside the immediate danger zone that refuse to leave but are still in the declaration area? I don’t know what official local, State or Federal policy is – but this strikes me as a double-edged sword. If they are forced to leave the Government is the bad guy trashing their rights, if they are left behind and something happens to them then the Government gets blamed for not helping them;

– Finally – I’m not going to answer for the city of New Orleans. Anyone I ever known that has lived in or near there or visited has always conveyed that is can be a frustrating and inept government to work with. Incompetence does not excuse breaking the law or trashing legally confiscated weaponry. That point I will concede.

No idea what they were doing at her house. I am not being duped by a single video. I have already watched many like this. Credible or not, if I am being duped it is by several videos 😉

guess I can’t assert that was the case for her. I will say that was the rule they were operating on after Katrina. Go back and view their standing orders for the time in question and they were expressly ordered to remove people from their homes for their own safety. Most of those who resisted were left alone in the end because forcibly removing them was more difficult than the alternative. But those were their orders.

As you’ve proved by your questions – there is huge doubt regarding the cause of such actions.

When CLEAR and Present Danger protocol is used, there is no such fog.

This is why this is so dangerous – to both the officers and the citizens – is because one party is assuming that the other is under C&PD protocol, and the other party is operating on the “Everything is Dangerous” Protocol.

Such as misalignment is where deadly force and innocent death – on both sides – occurs.

There is cause and effect BF. And it is one incident. One. I cannot take that to mean they do nothing, just as I would support fire fighters rushing to the scene knowing that statistically one will eventually accidentally collide with an innocent driver and someone dies. Does not make it easier to accept – but it will still happen.

Nothing like more Three Billy Goats Gruff from BF. That there is footage of one incident cannot inherently mean that there were other incidents that were not. That is intellectually and logically languorous.

Fair questions Ray. I will have to ponder this a bit more. As I said above, Kent was who blew me away when I occupied your position. I am sure hoping that he will come in and answer a few of your questions. Perhaps BF can ask him to jump in here tonight or tomorrow.

Cool I appreciate you alerting him that his expertise is needed. He could add significantly to helping Ray understand our position. May not convert him to seeing things our way, but he will at least get a better understanding of why we feel the way we do. I know Kent helped me sort through my thoughts on the subject greatly.

You sound like an evolution denier who keeps asking for another “missing link”. I have seen this video, in different forms, many different times. There is no “missing footage” in the ones I have seen.

What there is is a consistent whole. All parts keep pointing in the same direction, to the same conclusion, with many lines of evidence leading back to the same point. Yet, as a pro-government extremist there is no amount of evidence that will sway you. Your “God” is too precious to your mindset to be dethroned.

Two people seeing entirely different things – there is a ‘break’ in the video where they jump immediately to the officer disarming her. Watch it again and ask yourself – ‘is there any footage missing’.

USW, you do a lot on this site you would not have to. I will give you that. Maybe, however, the groupthink expression wasn’t meant for you in particular. I still believe, however, the past is there to learn more from mistakes made (to not recommit) versus looking for answers to today’s problems in dated documents and leadership styles that applied to past times, not present. I guess I’m really trying to answer for myself, is debate for debate’s sake, really worth it?

I think debate for debate’s sake is sometimes worth it. We are looking down the barrel of some pretty significant decisions. Congress has spent over a trillion dollars in 100 days. I would prefer they had really and truly debated it first. And please don’t insult me and say they did because we both know that isn’t true.

I am not, at any point, advocating that we go back to 1776 and start over. When I delve into the past it is usually to give some sort of context to the future. Take the “March to Socialism” series. It has all primarily been based in history thus far. And the next part will be as well. But in part 6 we will then have a better understanding of how we got to this point and why what we are doing may be a bad thing. I can just come out and say “socialism is bad”. I know it is more expedient. But I think it is valuable to see how we got to socialism and what is bad about it.

The other jaunts to the past generally are based on claims of current government. If they claim everything today is Bush’s fault, as they are doing, it is valuable to point out what an egregious lie that is.

And in discussing the founders and their intentions. They had a vision for what freedom and liberty meant. I happen to agree with their vision. I know the world has changed dramatically and in ways they never could have imagined. But I don’t think that the true definition of freedom and liberty has changed at all. Perhaps you see liberty different than I do, I don’t know. If you do that is OK, but every day I get new readers and I think it relevent to help them understand my vision of freedom.

But believe me when I say that I take what you say to heart. When you say what you do about the past I am hearing you and I try to take it into account. One thing to remember here is that 6 months ago I decided I would start writing a blog. I don’t claim to be perfect at it or that I even do it well. I just do it the way I do it. I try to take all criticism to heart, and attempt to make changes that will make it better for future visitors.

It took me 3 months to reach my goals of 1,000 comments and 10,000 visitors on this site . In the 2 and a half months since then I have had an additional 7,000 comments and over 100,000 visitors. To say that it has grown exponentially over the last 3 months is an understatement and it is certainly a bigger audience than I ever thought I would have. To say that I am sometimes overwhelmed would also be an understatement. Sometimes I am trying to figure out how I will even find time to read all the comments, let alone reply to any. I am always looking to improve the site, but you have to cut me a little slack here and there.

Your arguments with me certainly didn’t hurt. Besides I would contend that the other readers who comment here, yourself included, are a much bigger part of the popularity of this site than I am. I am just the guy who does the regulating. LOL

Just checked to see if you would answer my “last” post. No, you never have been talking to a wall. You and I, when it comes right down to it, are not that far apart ( we see abigger picture than most). Only one thought. Don’t let this thing you created turn into a “monster” that sucks the life right out of you. There are a lot of other neat aspects of life. And the time goes quick. Maybe will return this winter. Oh and read that book I told you about. It really makes you think as to how the world across the ocean is. We do not want or need that here. And yet with some of the mentality I see on blogs, I’m afraid it could happen. Take a look at what is going on in the Republican Party. Signing off. CF

I sent you an email in reply to that last post. I sent it to the email you have listed with your name. If you don’t get it drop me a line at usweapon@gmail.com and I will resend to a different one. I appreciate the insight you have provided while here. I truly hope you return in the winter.

This is a letter that I have drafted and plan on sending to Virginia’s Govenor, Tim Kaine. Recently he vetoed the law passed by Virginia’s Senate and House of Delegates to repeal the Restaurant Ban on Conceal Carry. Ray…this really sums up how I feel:

*****************

Gov. Kaine,

Out of respect, but with great sadness, I write you regarding a question that I have:

When, how and why did your family’s lives become more valuable than my family’s lives?

I imagine that to you, I am a faceless person…one citizen of many in the Commonwealth of Virginia. But, just like you, I am a citizen in the Commonwealth.

I am a married woman with three children. I pay taxes to the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am a law-abiding citizen.

I ask you again… When, how and why did your family’s lives become more valuable than my family’s lives?

In my opinion, the value of your family’s lives is no greater or no less than my family’s lives. There is one difference between you and I…you’ve accepted the honor of being a public servant to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia (which includes me).

In my humble opinion though, by accepting this honor, you have broken an unspoken tenet with the citizens that you serve and have placed a greater value upon your family’s lives than the lives of the citizens in the Commonwealth of Virginia, such as myself.

You sir, have a contingent of security (paid for by me – a citizen) to protect you and your family no matter where you go. You sir, do not allow me the same.

You sir, can take your family out to eat and have ease in the knowledge that you are protected by your security contingent. You sir, do not allow me the same.

For you, sir, there is a much less chance that you will become a victim of a violent crime because you are protected by your security contingent. For me, sir, you do not allow the same.

You sir, have placed a greater value on you and your family’s lives than the value that you, sir have placed upon my family’s lives.

You sir, have gone against the will of the Citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia by the continued refusal to sign into law the Repeal of the Restaurant Ban on Concealed Weapons.

Sir, shame upon you for the continued arrogance in placing a greater value on your own life.

You have a responsibility to not shoot innocent people. Why is this what gun-fearers always cling to? It just doesn’t happen often enough to obsess over it. It’s like fearing death by second hand smoke even though you never hang around smokers.

Most defensive firearm uses don’t even result in the gun being fired. Thugs are normally cowards. I read a lot of items about self defensive events and can only remember a couple that resulted in an innocent person being accidentally shot by the defender. Regular armed people are much less likely to shoot the wrong person than the “professionals”.

Why are you so opposed to acting like an adult and accepting your responsibility to protect your own life (and the lives of those who depend on you)? Because, like it or not, the responsibility IS yours. You either accept it or you don’t.

The hurricane evacuation route runs through the middle of my hometown in southeast Texas.Nine miles of road through my community was impacted by the hurricane evacuations.Vehicles were backed up for miles and miles for days.My community was without electricity or fuel for several weeks.Along that nine mile stretch of road were some good folks trying to get to some form of civilization from Louisiana.There were many more that were complete idiots that we call here in my native tongue “ate up with the dumbass.”

The locals here are fairly self sufficient when it comes to living.The majority raise livestock, hunt and raise vegetable gardens to supplement their forays to the supermarket.Generators and stockpiling of canned foods, fuel and water are a standard here because we have electrical outages due to thunderstorms frequently.We live in the “piney woods” and it doesn’t take much to put a tree on the line in this area.Hurricanes are catastrophic because of the sheer number of trees laid over on power lines and blocking roads.After Ike I crossed 212 felled trees on my way to check on my father in laws house three miles from my home to check on them.

Logging is a large industry here and after storms/hurricanes the loggers always go out and clear the roads for traffic out of the kindness of their hearts.After Katrina, Rita and Ike I sincerely hope we never see another hurricane for years but I doubt that will be the case.Not out of fear of the destruction and lack of power etc. but because of the imbeciles we had to deal with evacuating through our community.

After Katrina there were three deaths along that stretch of road.Two stabbings and one shooting.Numerous physical fights.All committed by evacuees.It seems as if folks lose their humanity and sense of reason when confronted with catastrophe.

Some of the locals including myself set up a rest area in our community with water and ice along that road at the local highschool.Several men have ice machines in the community so it only seemed fair to us to help out best we could.Most times we had people thankful but other times people that would demand we help them or give out more than what we were giving.

Some of these evacuees didn’t have the sense to turn off their vehicles because of the heat and their vehicles would overheat sitting there with no movement for hours and hours.Some ran out of gas.I can’t even begin to tell you how many vehicles were abandoned on that road in a weeks time but it was well over thirty.

My father in law has a three hundred acre farm that he raises livestock on.Several tractors and farm equipment.He keeps two 750 gallon fuel tanks full all year.One with diesel and one gasoline.While riding his fence line on my four wheeler to repair fence from the storm I noticed a group of 5 people at his fuel tanks with gas cans.Now these tanks sit across from a hay barn that is approximately three hundred yards away from a side road which is 1 mile down from the main road, the main road being the evacuation route.Well away from where they were supposed to be.I rode up to the tanks and told em’ this was private property and looked to me like they were stealing, trespassing, and out of place where they ought’ not be.They looked at the Smith and Wesson on my hip and the Bushmaster carbine in my lap and decided they were in fact in the wrong place and left without nary a word said.This happened three different times.Now I don’t run around loaded for bear all the time and am not a gun nut but those were an example of when it was justifiable to do so.Law enforcement could not have responded to any call for help for days.

My dad had to run some people off that were rummaging around in his shop one night.He used 12 gauge shotshells loaded with rocksalt though instead of words.Several neighbors had to run people off that were trespassing.There were a couple of break ins of peoples homes that had left the community when power was off to stay with family in other parts of the state.

In my opinion based on what I’ve seen society degrade down to just because of lack of electricity within days; you would have to be a fool to not be armed to protect your family, property and yourself just in case it were to happen in your area.A simple fool.

Actually Ray, it does. Think about the mindset of those that were stealing the fuel, if he hadn’t had the weapon when he came upon them and they were desperate enough, what was to stop them from using violence on him and taking what they wanted anyway? Not a thing! But, because he was armed that let them know that this was a man who could and would defend what was his. Make sense?

Regarding the discussion about New Orleans guns. Thougt you might like these “facts” pulled from Infowars.com

October 14, 2008

Fairfax, VA-After a three-year legal battle over the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a law suit by the National Rifle Association (NRA). A permanent injunction has been issued against the city, Mayor Ray Nagin and current Police Chief Warren Riley. The Second Amendment Foundation assisted NRA in the legal battle against Mayor Ray Nagin and the City of New Orleans.

“Today’s outcome is an important victory for the citizens of New Orleans and the Second Amendment,” said Wayne LaPierre, NRA’s executive vice president. “We fought for three long years in a fundamental legal challenge to assert the inherent self-defense rights for law-abiding citizens, knowing the Constitution would prevail. Today it has prevailed and freedom has won.”

Judge Carl J. Barbier presided over the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Barbier signed the permanent injuncation against the City of New Orleans. The city admitted the firearm confiscations carried out by Nagin and Riley were unconstitutional and illegal.

Under the terms of the injunction, Mayor Ray Nagin, Police Chief Warren Riley and any agents or employees of the City of New Orleans shall:

· cease and desist confiscating lawfully-possessed firearms from all citizens;

· make an aggressive attempt to return any and all firearms which may have been confiscated during the period August 29 to December 31, 2005;

· within one month of the settlement, post on the City website the procedure for the return of confiscated firearms. This notice must include an interactive form for those claiming firearms to fill out, resulting in timely transmission of the information to the appropriate official. All other information on claiming a firearm will also be included on the site.

· within one month of the settlement, the City must mail notices to all individuals who are identified on the property tags of firearms in the City’s possession which were confiscated during the aftermath of Katrina.

“On behalf of the lawful gun owners of New Orleans, NRA is pleased with this outcome,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “We thank Judge Barbier for his leadership and constitutional scholarship in presiding over our lawsuit. NRA will continue to aid however we can in the full return of all the firearms confiscated by the City.”

Nice – good read from another right winger. I only hope that the next disaster that hits the place that our friends in blue aren’t paralyzed by decision trying to figure out in the heat of battle who is legal and who is not, or scared because they go to check on some elderly woman that starts waving a gun around.

Many LE in the US are trained in hand-to-hand combat techniques – often in the system known as krav maga which originated in Israel and is taught in three versions: civilian krav, police krav and military krav and generally by two ‘schools’ – the L.A. version and the Israeli version. I can only speak to civilian krav as that is what I train in. The other forms involved techniques and strikes that can be for more lethal and thus more risky to teach. In both LA and Israeli versions of krav, gun defense is like most any other defense – you are taught to neutralize the threat which often involves a combination of offensive and defensive moves known as ‘retzev’. In gun defense, after the initial weapon deflection, you are taught to strike a person in the face or throat area so as to both neutralize the threat and increase the likelihood of removing the firearm. Simply trying to wrestle the weapon away is not taught as an effective method. There is rarely distinction made as to the attacker. This can seem unfortunate and tough to stomach, but a 70 year old woman is as capable of pulling the trigger as is a 30 year old man or 14 year old girl.

In the video so passionately referenced, there is missing footage just prior to the officer disarming the woman. We don’t know what occurred just prior because it was edited out. There is a strong likelihood that is she were acting erratically or waving the weapon around (e.g. not demonstrating control or lack of threat) then the officer would simply have reacted as trained to do. I also would have acted to immediately neutralize the threat if other measures failed – and yes – I would have punched her in the face.

In my mind, I was just planning on agreeing to disagree with you over the gun control issue…

BUT…Wow! I really have to sit here and think a few minutes and get myself together (and literally pick myself up off the floor) over this statement that you made!!! Frankly, you have shocked me and not in a good way.

The relevant word is “IF”. Beyond that, it is a judgment call as to the amount of force necessary to disarm the person involved. There is a “risk”, there is always a risk, that’s why they have taken on the responsibility of being Police officers. If they want no risk, they should have just shot her to begin with.

Of course you do. Just as you have the right to defend yourself if someone is swinging his fist towards your face. You have no right to cut off his hands or demand that he keep his hands in his pockets because you feel threatened, though. And this is what victim disarmament demands.

I’m not a victim. What the “laws” are designed to do is to manufacture victims… if people submit to them.

If an attacker bursts in and kills people, you have a pile of victims. If he bursts in and is killed by his intended victims, you have a dead thug. Now, he may rack up a few victims before he is stopped, but likely not as many as he would have if everyone agreed beforehand to be victimized. “Laws” that enforce disarmament ensure a ready supply of victims for the taking. That is why “gun control laws” are more properly termed victim disarmament
“laws”.

Yeah, that as one of the great arguments in Viet Nam for killing eight year olds too. Hey, as a cop, you are a US Citizen first and hopefully a human being not a robot. Part of the risk you take is that you may not respond quickly enough. Missing footage or not, I have a real problem with a cop slugging somebody my Mom’s age.

I think every cop has to sit down and figure out which side he is on. Are you an occupying force or are you there to “serve and protect”?

Hey, why would you call me a “citizen”? Have I ever been nasty to YOU? I am an individual who happens to live on a landmass claimed by the US government. As far as I know, that government has no problems with me being here (yet) and would call me “legal”, but since it has no authority in this matter, its opinion can crawl back into the basement of the “little house out back” from whence it came for all I care.

There are so many good cops out there and then there are not. It’s the power trip thing. Look around at these suburban young bucks. They have their heads shaved, wear blue BDU’s and each stupid little town equips them like they are LAPD SWAT, MP-5’s, vests, Kevlar. Try, as a citizen approaching them, to ask a question, any question, and you usually get a snarl. Most of these clowns look like they are on steroids and in rage mode.

Like I said, there are good cops and I love them but there is a whole, huge sub-group out there that scares the crap out of me. As a law abiding type, I don’t have to deal with them most of the time but I’m a good observer. In Bergen county NJ, I do honestly think that county cops are off the wall. On the main routes, I see drivers pulled over and an inordinate amount seem to be black, middle age black at that. Sometimes I feel I am in the deep south in the ’50’s

My most recent dealings were with the town cops. My son, a former soldier has an AR-15. He recently moved to DC with it’s gun bans and wants to leave the rifle with me. Since NJ has a “ban” on certain “assault weapons” but not others, I went to town hall to inquire if I could register it (back when the passed the ban they made an exception if you voluntarily registered it). Well, I didn’t get any help, instead I got a lecture wherein Lt. Shavedhead told me no less than three times that I would go to jail if I dared bring this weapon of mass destruction to NJ. Sheriff Andy of Mayberry is long gone.

Those of you who know guns would be surprised to know the AR-15’s are banned but a fully tricked out Ruger Mini-14 is not in the Garden State.

Ray, if you have never dealt with these hooples, on this issue, you are lucky.

Andy was a “Peace” Officer that understood how to treat people. I sure do miss his type. I agree with you totally, you don’t see many of his type anymore.

The only thing that I would disagree on with you is perhaps some wording…

I think that the Peace Officers are now the sub-group; that the Shaved-Head, Snarling types are the main group.

I was stopped for speeding once by the “Peace” Officer type…He pulled over three cars at the same time…He walked up to me and basically said, “Ma’am, do you realize your were speeding”? I said that I guess I was, but was keeping up with the traffice. He said, “Well, I just wanted to warn you to slow down so that you don’t get hurt. Have a nice day ma’am”. It sure was refreshing!

He vehemently resisted any of his men to have shotguns mounted in their cars, and vehemently resisted the move from revolver to semi-auto. All the heavy weapons could be easily stored in the trunk and he felt there was no situation that existed that couldn’t suffice a trunk-mounted weapons.

He also predicted that moving from the revolver to the semi-auto would create situations where the officer blasted away indiscriminately with dozens upon dozens of rounds – where one shot from a revolver would suffice. If you needed more firepower than a revolver – go get it out of the trunk.

He saw the job of an officer in any confrontation was to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it. The use of heavy firepower was certain to ensure the use of more violence, not less.

He saw the police slowly morph into an army – where today a police officer carries more protection and firepower than a front-line solider in WW1.

He predicted the consequences of such… and sadly, has been proven right. i

In a combat situation, once the first shot has been fired, away we go. If there are 17 rounds in the weapon, 17 will be fired. Fire discipline comes from experience, most soldiers never develop it, how can policemen possibly do so? After Viet-Nam, the military went to burst fire on the M-16 instead of full auto. The psychological reason was that at least that instant where you have to pull the trigger a second time and then a third slowed the urge to just let thirty rounds rip.

Think back to that Bronx shooting a few years ago. Four undercover officers in a bad neighborhood at night(I worked there), looking for a particular bad guy. They spot someone coming out of a building and ask him to halt. He does not speak enough English and reaches for his ID. Nobody knows which cop shot first but 41 rounds later, (nineteen hit the guy) and it was over. The most telling point was that at 15 feet or so distance, the cops were so shook, they missed 22 times.

What were we saying about group think or “our way”? I think the agenda just got exposed.

Forgive my post 3:00am mis-speak. I didn’t want to have to go in to great length explaining myself but I guess I have no choice. BF and I see the gun control issues much the same way. I merely meant that Kent may not be able to sway you all the way to believing what BF and I do, and the follow up second half of that sentence was far more telling in what I was hoping would happen: “but perhaps he will have a better understanding of why we feel the way we do”. My hope was not to convert, as I don’t think you are convertable on this issue. My hope was that you would understand my position better than what I was able to express on my own.

If I believe I am right on a subject and that you are wrong on a subject, isn’t a debate always going to be with the goal of getting them to see that you are right and they should believe what you believe? That isn’t an agenda, that is natural. I think I am right so I try to get you to agree with me. You think you are right and you try to get me to agree with you. Because BF shares that belief with me and I made that statement does not an “agenda” make.

I find myself getting frustrated trying to defend what I am doing with this site. I want to have discussions with opposing positions so that we can at least understand each other and maybe even find a compromise. But it seems the more I open my mouth the more I am accused of having an agenda. I think I will keep my mouth shut in the discussions and stick to writing an article and letting everyone else debate the topics.

Try this one – sometimes there will be hard core debate, some time there will be dialogue, some times you’ll just throw the ball up and see who hits it first and in what direction. My reaction was – a reaction. Its your blog, it can be thought provoking, entertaining or down right frustrating all at the same time – I don’t have to come here and read and post any more than you have to call the rules of the game every time out. As I said in an email to you – you have unique experiences that shed light on things in ways you would not imagine. Don’t let an over-thinking left-leaning moderate such as I distract you from that. Unlike some other folks, I do not think I am always right.

Thanks Ray. I appreciate your comments and perhaps I let my frustration get the best of me for a moment. And if I haven’t said it already or lately, I truly appreciate what you add to the conversations. I don’t want, at any point, to have us fall into not seeing the other points of view. And you are good at providing us with well thought out opposition. It makes you a true asset to the site. I hope everyone else sees it that way as well.

I know Ray that I appreciate having you here…there are times that I do agree with you…there are other times that I don’t…You certainly did get my blood to boiling yesterday though! I guess that is a good thing…

I guess I will start by saying that I am not “right wing”, however the government extremists undoubtedly would consider me an extremist of some sort by comparison to themselves. In that case I will claim the title of “liberty extremist”.

“Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” — Robert A Heinlein

And I agree with this. Government extremists are those who wish to control the voluntary behavior of others; behavior that has no “victim”. They either want to have this power of control themselves, or to send thugs out to do it for them. Either way, it harms innocent people (which is my definition of “evil”).

These fools are worried about “Rightwing extremists” who are a “threat” to the federal government. Excuse me but didn’t Barack Obama run social programs with Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. Didn’t that extremist group intend to bomb Federal buildings, the pentagon being one of those. Despite this fact, and despite Bill Ayers criminal record somehow he still managed to become a college professor. I’m sure sucking money out of Chicago for “social programs” was helpful. This administration is anti-America, their propaganda is injected into the minds of college students and high school students, and whoever else they know the can manipulate. But the truth is they are only, a group of self-centered hypocrits. They won’t honor the policies of past presidents, and they will prosecute their own countrymen for “torture” while embracing communist and socialist murderers and tyrants. Our freedom, country, and government has been infultrated, thanks to all the Americans who didn’t read, or research before voting.

P.S. If you think that Obama never had illegal ties with Blagojavic you’d be wrong.